Antimicrobial Resistance Zoonotic Bacteria Humans Animals Food EU Summary Report 2014

SCIENTIFIC REPORT
ADOPTED: 9 February 2016 PUBLISHED: 11 February 2016 AMENDED: 11 March 2016

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4380
The European Union summary report on antimicrobial

resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from
humans, animals and food in 2014
European Food Safety Authority
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
Abstract
The data on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria in 2014, submitted by 28 EU
Member States (MSs), were jointly analysed by EFSA and ECDC. Resistance in zoonotic Salmonella
and Campylobacter species from humans, animals and food, and resistance in indicator
Escherichia coli as well as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals and food was
assessed. Microbiological resistance was assessed using epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) values; for
some countries, quantitative data on human isolates were interpreted in a way which corresponds
closely to the ECOFF-defined microbiological resistance. In Salmonella from humans, high proportions
of isolates were resistant to ampicillin, sulfonamides and tetracyclines, whereas resistance to third-
generation cephalosporins and to fluoroquinolones remained generally low, although it was markedly
higher in some serovars commonly associated with broilers and turkeys. In Salmonella and
Escherichia coli isolates from broilers, fattening turkeys and meat thereof, resistance to ampicillin,
(fluoro)quinolones, tetracyclines and sulfonamides was frequently detected, whereas resistance to
third-generation cephalosporins was uncommon. For the first time, presumptive extended spectrum
beta-lactamase (ESBL)-/AmpC-/carbapenemase production in Salmonella and Escherichia coli was
monitored in poultry. The occurrence of ESBL-/AmpC-producers was low, and carbapenemase-
producers were not detected. Resistance to colistin was observed at low levels in Salmonella and
Escherichia coli from poultry and meat thereof. In Campylobacter from humans, a high to very high
proportion of isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines, whereas resistance to
erythromycin was low to moderate. Resistance to fluoroquinolones in some MSs was extremely high;
in such settings, the effective treatment options for human enteric Campylobacter infection may be
significantly reduced. High resistance to ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines was observed in
Campylobacter isolates from broilers and broiler meat, whereas much lower levels were recorded for
erythromycin. Co-resistance to critically important antimicrobials in both human and animal isolates
was generally uncommon, but very high to extremely high MDR levels were observed in some
Salmonella serovars. A minority of Salmonella isolates from animals belonging to a few serovars
(notably Kentucky and Infantis) exhibited high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin.
European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2016
Keywords: antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic bacteria, indicator bacteria, ESBL

Requestor: European Commission
Question number: EFSA-Q-2015-00088
Correspondence: zoonoses@efsa.europa.eu (EFSA); FWD@ecdc.europa.eu (ECDC)
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

EUSR on AMR in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food 2014
Acknowledgements: EFSA and ECDC wish to thank the members of the Scientific Network for
Zoonoses Monitoring Data (EFSA) and the Food- and Waterborne Diseases and Zoonoses Network
(ECDC) who provided the data and reviewed the report and the members of the Scientific Network for
Zoonoses Monitoring Data, for their endorsement of this scientific output. Also, the contribution of
EFSA staff members: Pierre-Alexandre Belil, Beatriz Guerra, Anca-Violeta Stoicescu, Kenneth
Mulligan, Krisztina Nagy and Mirena Ivanova, the contributions of ECDC staff member: Therese
Westrell, and the contributions of EFSAs contractor: Christopher Teale (Animal and Plant Health
Laboratories Agency United Kingdom), for the support provided to this scientific output.
Amendment: An editorial correction was carried out that does not materially affect the contents or
outcome of this scientific output: O4 has been replaced by O:9 on pages 12 and 13. To avoid
confusion, the older version has been removed from the EFSA Journal, but is available on request, as
is a version showing all the changes made.
Suggested citation: EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European Centre for
Disease Prevention and Control), 2016. The European Union summary report on antimicrobial
resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2014. EFSA Journal
2016;14(2):4380, 207 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4380
ISSN: 1831-4732
European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food

Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union.
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Summary
Highlights
Zoonoses are infections that are transmissible between animals and humans. Infections can be
acquired directly from animals, via environmental exposure or through the ingestion of contaminated
foodstuffs. The severity of these diseases in humans can vary from mild symptoms to life-threatening
conditions. Zoonotic bacteria that are resistant to antimicrobials are of particular concern, as they
might compromise the effective treatment of infections in humans. Data from the EU Member States
(MSs) are collected and analysed in order to monitor the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
in zoonotic bacteria isolated from humans, animals and food in the European Union (EU).
For 2014, 28 MSs reported data on AMR in zoonotic bacteria to the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA), and 21 MSs submitted data to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
(ECDC). In addition, three other European countries provided information. The enhanced monitoring
of AMR in bacteria from food and food-producing animals set out in the Commission Implementing
Decision 2013/652/EU was successfully implemented in reporting MSs and non-MSs in the EU during
2014. In accordance with the legislation, the 2014 AMR data on food and food-producing animals
specifically targeted different poultry populations and meat derived thereof. EFSA and ECDC
performed the analyses of the data, the results of which are published in this EU Summary Report on
AMR. Data on resistance were reported regarding Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates from
humans, poultry and meat thereof, whereas data on indicator Escherichia coli isolates were related
only to poultry and meat derived thereof. Some MSs also reported data on the occurrence of
meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in animals and food; the antimicrobial susceptibility
of MRSA isolates was additionally reported by two countries.
The quantitative data on AMR in isolates from humans, poultry and meat thereof were assessed using
harmonised epidemiological cut-off values that define microbiological resistance, i.e. reduced
susceptibility to the antimicrobials tested, as well as using clinical breakpoints (CBPs), where
considered appropriate. The categorical (qualitative) data on AMR in isolates from humans interpreted
by using CBPs were aligned with microbiological resistance by combining clinically resistant and
intermediate resistant isolates into a non-susceptible group. Isolates from different sources should
only be directly compared when methods and interpretive criteria are comparable.
For the first time, all MSs reported AMR data on poultry and meat thereof at the isolate level. This
enabled analysis of multi-drug resistance (MDR) and co-resistance patterns to critically important
antimicrobials in both human and animal isolates at the EU level but also at country level. In addition,
for all bacterial species, AMR data could be analysed at the production-type level, such as broilers and
laying hens of Gallus gallus and fattening turkeys, which allows the analysis of the data to be fine-
tuned. More specifically, reporting data at isolate level allowed characterisation of important patterns
of resistance, enabling Salmonella serovars to be linked to particular resistance patterns and to
identify high-level resistance to fluoroquinolones and important resistance phenotypes in both
Salmonella and indicator E. coli. The information published in this report provides an overview of
resistance in most MSs with detailed consideration of certain important aspects.
Highlights of this report include the continued monitoring of the spread of certain highly resistant
Salmonella serovars. Two serovars in particular, S. Infantis and S. Kentucky, contribute significantly to
the overall numbers of multidrug-resistant Salmonella in Europe. Both serovars display high-level
resistance to ciprofloxacin, which is an important public health concern because ciprofloxacin is a
common first-line treatment for invasive salmonellosis in humans.
The introduction of Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU with revised panels of
antimicrobials to be tested has been timely, preceding recent reports of emergence of transferable
colistin and erythromycin resistance in Asia (Liu et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015). The continually
evolving threat from emerging resistance underlines the need to review the data collected, interpret
the findings and assess trends. This report has attempted to highlight some of the most important
findings in 2014, but space constraints mean that it is necessarily selective.

Horizon Scanning transferable resistance to colistin and erythromycin.

Some types of resistance, e.g. to colistin and erythromycin, have been considered as not
being subject to transfer between different strains of bacteria. They were believed to be
only inherited from a bacterial cell to its daughter cells by cell division. This assumption
applied to resistance which was mutational, frequently located on the bacterial
chromosome or affected the bacterial ribosome (bacterial protein machinery). Recently,
however, interbacterial transfer has been described in Asia for colistin resistance in
Enterobacteriaceae and erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter (Liu et al., 2015; Wang
et al., 2015).
These are important developments because chromosomal resistances which are not
transferable can only spread by clonal expansion of bacterial strains, whereas transferable
resistance, such as plasmid-mediated resistance, can spread rapidly between different
bacterial strains leading to widespread dissemination.
Erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter and colistin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae are
both of public health significance, but occur at low, very low or undetected levels in many
MSs.
The inclusion within the harmonised monitoring scheme of a supplementary panel of antimicrobials, to
be tested when certain resistances to an initial panel of antimicrobials are detected, enabled detailed
screening of resistance to three carbapenem compounds. No resistance to meropenem was detected
and this is a crucial finding, because carbapenems are critically important in human medicine. Only
nine E. coli isolates from broilers and one from fattening turkeys isolated in 6 MSs showed resistance
to ertapenem, and all these isolates presented a putative extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)
or AmpC phenotype. These isolates are being further investigated.
The supplementary testing also allowed, for the first time, detailed characterisation of the beta-lactam
resistance phenotypes occurring in Salmonella and indicator E. coli. It enabled further phenotypic
characterisation of third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in Salmonella and
indicator E. coli, by inferring presumptive profiles of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producers. The
occurrence of ESBL-/AmpC-producers in Salmonella and indicator E. coli from poultry was assessed as
being at low levels. It also showed that S. Infantis in Italy and S. Heidelberg in the Netherlands have
probably each acquired a different mechanism of third-generation cephalosporin resistance (an ESBL
enzyme in S. Infantis and an AmpC enzyme in S. Heidelberg) and have subsequently spread within
each MS.
Main findings regarding Salmonella

The Salmonella spp. data presented in this report comprise all reported non-typhoidal Salmonella
serovars and represent the overall occurrence of AMR in Salmonella in humans and various poultry
populations and food categories. Differences in the prevalence of particular serovars and phage types
of Salmonella in different countries and poultry populations, and their associated patterns of
resistance, may explain some of the differences in the levels of AMR and MDR (reduced susceptibility
to at least three of the nine antimicrobial classes tested according to epidemiological cut-off values,
ECOFFs). The spread of particularly resistant clones and the occurrence of resistance genes within
these clones can be exacerbated by the use of antimicrobials in human and animal populations and its
selective pressure. Other factors, such as foreign travel by humans, international food trade, animal
movements, farming systems, animal husbandry and the pyramidal structure of some types of animal
primary production, may also influence the spread of resistant clones.
In addition to the aggregated data for Salmonella spp., resistance data for the most common
Salmonella serovars in humans, S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, monophasic S. Typhimurium and
S. Infantis, were analysed separately. Data are also presented separately for serovars S. Derby and
S. Kentucky owing to their high prevalence in turkeys and the high level of resistance observed in
both human and animal isolates, particularly in S. Kentucky. In poultry populations and poultry meat,
resistance profiles of isolates belonging to these serovars were considered also when less than 10

isolates were recovered from a given animal/food category in a country to account for the low
prevalence of certain serovars and for the sake of completeness.
In humans
In 2014, 21 MSs and Norway reported data on AMR in Salmonella isolates from human cases of
salmonellosis. Twelve countries provided data as measured values (quantitative data), five more than
the previous year when this type of data collection was implemented. The reported data from the 22
countries represented 16.0% of the confirmed salmonellosis cases reported in the EU/European
Economic Area (EEA) in 2014.
High proportions of human Salmonella isolates were resistant to tetracyclines (30.3%), sulfonamides
(28.6%) and ampicillin (28.2%). MDR was high overall (26.0%) in the EU, with very high prevalence
in some countries. Some of the investigated serovars exhibited very high to extremely high MDR, such
as S. Kentucky (74.6%), monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- (69.4%) and S. Infantis (61.9%).
However, more than half (54.8%) of all isolates from humans were susceptible to the complete range
of antimicrobial classes tested. The proportions of Salmonella isolates resistant to the clinically
important antimicrobials ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was overall relatively low (8.8% resistant to
ciprofloxacin and 1.1% to cefotaxime). The higher ciprofloxacin resistance in 2014 compared to 2013
is most likely due to a combination of the lowered European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Testing (EUCAST, www.eucast.org) CBP for ciprofloxacin in 2014 now directly comparable with the
ECOFF and the implementation by a few countries of a better marker (pefloxacin) than ciprofloxacin
for screening with disk diffusion of low-level fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella.
An extremely high proportion (84.0%) of S. Kentucky was resistant to ciprofloxacin, which is
consistent with the dissemination of the ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Kentucky ST198 strain in Europe and
elsewhere since 2010 (Le Hello et al., 2013). Resistance to third-generation cephalosporins was more
common in S. Infantis and S. Kentucky with particularly high levels observed in Italy, most likely due
to the circulation of a multiresistant and ESBL-producing (cefotaximase (CTX-M) type) clone of
S. Infantis.
Clinical and microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was overall very low in
Salmonella spp. (0.5% and 0.6%, respectively).
Resistance to colistin was commonly detected in S. Enteritidis (67.5%, two MSs) which could be due
to intrinsic resistance in this serovar (see text box Resistance to colistin). As the CBP is at the same
concentration as the ECOFF applied in the analysis, the observed colistin resistance is of concern since
this last-resort drug might no longer be effective for treating severe human infections with the most
common Salmonella serovar.
In poultry populations and meat derived thereof

In 2014, information on AMR in Salmonella isolates from poultry populations and meat derived thereof
was reported by 24 MSs and two non-MSs.
Among the Salmonella spp. isolates from meat, the highest levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin and
nalidixic acid were noted in broiler meat, where high to extremely high levels were recorded by most
of the MSs included in the analysis (overall, 42.6% and 39.7%, respectively). In Salmonella spp.
isolates from turkey meat, ciprofloxacin resistance varied between low and extremely high levels
among the 3 reporting MSs (overall, 24.3%). Conversely, microbiological resistance to the third-
generation cephalosporins (cefotaxime and ceftazidime) in Salmonella spp. from poultry meat was
either not discerned or detected at low levels in most of the reporting MSs.
Resistance to tetracycline, ampicillin and sulfamethoxazole in Salmonella spp. isolates from poultry
meat generally ranged from moderate to extremely high. The highest levels of resistance to these
substances were typically observed among S. Infantis isolates from broiler meat, resulting in
extremely high levels of MDR (> 70.0%). MDR (reduced susceptibility to at least three of the nine
antimicrobial classes tested) was overall low in laying hens, high in broiler meat, turkey meat and
broilers, and very high in turkeys. In S. Enteritidis from broiler meat, broilers and laying hens, the
majority of isolates were fully susceptible to the harmonised set of antimicrobials tested.

Generally, low to very low levels of microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime in
Salmonella spp. from broiler flocks (1.8%) and laying hen flocks (0.12%) were reported. When the
resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was interpreted using CBPs, only one S. Kentucky isolate
from broilers in Spain displayed clinical resistance.
Among all serovars, isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin, but not to nalidixic acid, were observed,
probably indicating an increasing occurrence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance.
Among Salmonella spp. isolates from poultry populations, most MSs reported moderate or high to
extremely high resistance to tetracyclines and sulfonamides, and similar or slightly lower levels of
ampicillin resistance. Resistance levels were generally higher in isolates from fattening turkeys than
from broilers and laying hens.
Overall, high levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid were observed in Salmonella spp.
isolates from fattening turkeys and broilers compared with the moderate levels recorded in
Salmonella spp. isolates from laying hens. Resistance to third-generation cephalosporins (cefotaxime
and ceftazidime) was generally at very low or low levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers and
laying hens in most reporting MSs, with the striking exception of the high levels of cefotaxime and
ceftazidime resistance reported in Salmonella spp. from broilers in Italy. No resistance to third-
generation cephalosporins was detected in fattening turkeys.
Clinical resistance to cefotaxime was found at low to high levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from
broilers and laying hens in 10 MSs. The supplementary testing performed in 2014 allowed further
phenotypic characterisation of those Salmonella isolates which were resistant to third-generation
cephalosporins.
Table 1: Summary of phenotypic characterisation of third generation cephalosporin resistance in

Salmonella from poultry in 2014
Presumptive Presumptive Presumptive

ESBL phenotype AmpC phenotype ESBL + AmpC phenotype
n (% R) n (% R) n (% R)
Meat from broilers (N=672) 0 (0%) 1 (0.1%) 2 (0.3%)
Broilers (N=2,293) 30 (1.3%) 18 (0.8%) 4 (0.2%)
Laying hens (N=872) 0 (0%) 3 (0.3%) 0 (0%)
N: number of the isolates tested; n: number of the isolates resistant; % R: percentage of resistant isolates; ESBL: extended
spectrum beta-lactamase.
Most Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers with an ESBL phenotype were S. Infantis (18/30, 60%)
with S. Paratyphi B L(+) tartrate positive (S. Paratyphi B var. Java) comprising a further 6/30 (20%).
Considering those isolates with an AmpC phenotype, 9/18 (50%) were S. Heidelberg, whereas single
isolates of S. Infantis and S. Paratyphi B var. Java had an AmpC phenotype. Salmonella spp. from
broilers with an AmpC and an ESBL phenotype included three isolates of S. Infantis and a single
isolate of S. Enteritidis. Three Salmonella isolates from laying hens with an AmpC phenotype belonged
to serovars S. Enteritidis, S. Anatum and S. Glostrup.
Resistance to carbapenems in Salmonella in poultry and meat thereof was not observed in any of the
reporting countries.
Broilers and fattening turkeys were the main focus of the monitoring in 2014 in accordance with
Decision 2013/652/EU. The detailed reporting of results at serovar level clearly demonstrates the
major contribution of a few serovars to the observed prevalence of resistance in Salmonella. In
broilers, eight serovars (Infantis, Enteritidis, Mbandaka, Kentucky, Senftenberg, Typhimurium, Agona
and Montevideo) accounted for 74.1% of Salmonella spp. (Figure 1) and in laying hens eight serovars
(Enteritidis, Typhimurium, Infantis, Kentucky, Montevideo, Mbandaka, Senftenberg and Livingstone)
accounted for 62.3% of Salmonella spp. In fattening turkeys, eight serovars (Derby, Kentucky,
Newport, Hadar, Infantis, Saintpaul, Bredeney and Stanley) accounted for 68.1% of Salmonella spp.
Patterns of resistance associated with these serovars, may therefore be expected to have a marked
influence on the overall resistance levels in Salmonella from these types of poultry (Figure 2).

S. Agona, 2.2 S. Montevideo, 2.1

S. Typhimurium, 3.6
S. Senftenberg, 4.5
S. Infantis*
S. Kentucky, 4.8
Salmonella other serovars
S. Enteritidis
S. Mbandaka, 6.8
S. Infantis, 36.6 S. Mbandaka
S. Kentucky
S. Senftenberg
S. Enteritidis, 13.5
S. Typhimurium
Salmonella other S. Agona
serovars, 25.9
S. Montevideo
* One third of the S. Infantis isolates were reported by Romania.
Figure 1: Breakdown of serovars in Salmonella isolates from broiler flocks tested for antimicrobial
susceptibility in the EU, 2014
S. Kentucky (N=82) Susceptible
S. Infantis (N=797)
Resistant to one
monophasic S.Typhimurium (N=31) or two
antimicrobials
S.Typhimurium (N=83)
Multi-resistant
S. Enteriditis (N=304)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 2: Proportions of isolates fully susceptible, resistant to one to two classes of substances and
multiresistant in the most commonly recovered Salmonella serovars in broiler flocks in
the EU, 2014
S. Infantis is a dominant serovar in broilers, accounting for 35.9% of all Salmonella isolates examined
from broilers (762/2,122), and commonly showing resistance. The proportion of all isolates showing
MDR in broilers was also greatly influenced by the occurrence of multiresistant S. Infantis, this serovar
accounting for approximately 31% of the multiresistant isolates in broilers. Particular MDR patterns
were associated with S. Infantis and because this serovar was prevalent in many countries, these
patterns greatly influenced the overall resistance figures. Underlining the significance of resistance in
S. Infantis, resistance to third-generation cephalosporins in isolates from broilers in Italy (with a
presumptive ESBL phenotype) and high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin were both detected in this
serovar. High-level ciprofloxacin resistance was otherwise detected mainly in S. Kentucky, a further
significant serovar in poultry in Europe in 2014.
In contrast, S. Enteritidis was less commonly multiresistant than S. Infantis, although one isolate was
identified with an ESBL and AmpC phenotype. Higher levels of resistance to colistin were observed for
S. Enteritidis than for other Salmonella serovars. This has been reported previously (Agers et al.,
2012) and is considered to reflect probable intrinsic differences in susceptibility for certain serovars of
Salmonella (so-called group D Salmonella according to the Kauffman-White Scheme, Grimont and
Weill, 2013).

High-level resistance to ciprofloxacin was most often observed in S. Kentucky isolates from
Gallus gallus in Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Spain, and from turkeys in the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain and in broiler meat from Hungary and Spain. Most of the
S. Kentucky isolates with high-level ciprofloxacin resistance (n=161) were multiresistant (73.3%).
S. Kentucky with high-level ciprofloxacin resistance is likely to belong to the multilocus sequence type
ST198 clone, which has shown epidemic spread in North Africa and the Middle East (Le Hello, 2013a).
Colistin-resistant Salmonella isolates were found by several MSs originating from broilers, laying hens
and fattening turkeys. Further information is provided in the text box below.
Microbiological resistance to tigecycline was reported in 9.3% of all Salmonella spp. from broilers,
0.6% of isolates from laying hens and 8% from turkeys. There was a marked association of
tigecycline microbiological resistance with S. Infantis in poultry and most microbiologically resistant
strains had minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) just above the ECOFF at 2 or 4 mg/l. Resistance
to tigecycline in Salmonella is thought to be mediated by increased activity of efflux pumps, through
modifications to the expression of efflux pump regulatory genes and this may explain the distribution
of MICs which was obtained. Determining the susceptibility of tigecycline is not entirely
straightforward as the method can be affected by oxidation of the reagents and the tigecycline results
are being further investigated by the European Union Reference Laboratory for AMR (EURL-AR,
www.crl-ar.eu).
Main findings regarding Campylobacter
In humans
In 2014, 13 MSs and Norway reported data on AMR in Campylobacter isolates from human cases of
campylobacteriosis. Eight countries provided data as measured values (quantitative data), three more
than the previous year when this type of data collection was implemented. The reported data from
the 14 countries represented 12.3% and 17.4% of the confirmed human cases with Campylobacter
jejuni and Campylobacter coli, respectively, reported in the EU/EEA in 2014.
The proportion of human C. jejuni isolates resistant to erythromycin was overall low, but moderately
high in C. coli and high (> 20.050.0%) to very high (> 50.070.0%) in C. coli in a few reporting
countries. Very high to extremely high resistance levels to ciprofloxacin were reported in human
Campylobacter isolates from all reporting MSs (although lower in Norway). Five of 13 MSs reported
ciprofloxacin resistance in > 80% of isolates and one country in 97.7%; in such settings, effective
treatment options for human enteric Campylobacter infection are significantly reduced. Given the high
levels of resistance to fluoroquinolones in broilers and the assessment that a large proportion of
human campylobacteriosis infections comes from handling, preparation and consumption of broiler
meat (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010a), this is a compelling example of how AMR in food and animals may
impact the availability of effective antimicrobial agents for treating severe human Campylobacter
infections. High levels of tetracycline resistance were also observed (46.4% for C. jejuni and 53.8%
for C. coli).
Co-resistance to the critically important antimicrobials ciprofloxacin and erythromycin varied by
country but was overall low (0.3%) in C. jejuni and moderate in C. coli (13.6%). In the case of C. coli,
two MSs reported co-resistance in 44.857.6% of isolates. Multidrug resistance, i.e. microbiological
resistance to at least three of the four different antimicrobial classes, was low (0.4%) in C. jejuni but
markedly higher (13.6%) in C. coli.
In poultry populations and meat derived thereof

For 2014, 26 MSs and two non-MSs reported data on Campylobacter isolates from broilers, fattening
turkeys and meat derived thereof. When considering both poultry populations, the highest levels of
resistance were observed for (fluoro)quinolones (ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid) and tetracyclines.
Resistance to erythromycin and gentamicin was comparatively low in Campylobacter isolates from
poultry and derived meat. Resistance was generally higher in C. coli than in C. jejuni from the same
poultry populations.
In C. jejuni isolates from broilers, overall resistance was very high for ciprofloxacin (69.8%), nalidixic
acid (65.1%) and tetracycline (54.4%), whereas overall resistance to erythromycin and to gentamicin

was respectively low (5.9%) and very low (0.9%). A similar pattern of resistance to these substances
occurred in C. coli from broilers, although at overall higher levels than those observed in C. jejuni, at
74.3%, 69.5% and 59.6%, for ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracycline and at 14.5% and 2.6% for
erythromycin and gentamicin, respectively.
Multidrug resistance (reduced susceptibility to at least three antimicrobial classes according to
ECOFFs) was overall low (4.6%) in C. jejuni from broilers. Co-resistance to the criticially important
antimicrobials ciprofloxacin and erythromycin was either not detected or recorded up to high levels
(overall, at 4.8%). The situation was different for C. coli from broilers, where MDR as a percentage of
all isolates received by the individual MSs ranged from 2.8% to 33.3% (overall MDR at 13.6%) in the
reporting MSs.
Over the 20082014 period, resistance to ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and nalidixic acid in broilers
varied greatly among reporting MSs and statistically significant increasing trends in resistance to these
antimicrobials were observed for several MSs, for both C. jejuni and C. coli.
In C. jejuni isolates from broiler meat, resistance, considering all reporting MSs, ranged from high to
very high for ciprofloxacin (65.7%), nalidixic acid (61.8%) and tetracyclines (36.3%), whereaslevels of
resistance to erythromycin and gentamicin were low at 1.6% and very low 0.3%, respectively. A
similar pattern was observed for C. coli isolates from broiler meat; however, levels of resistance were
higher overall. Levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid were extremely high at 85.8%
and 85.1%, respectively, very high for tetracycline at 73.9%, moderate for erythromycin at 17.2%
and not detected for gentamicin.
Despite the fact that imported food can contribute to cases of Campylobacter infection, there were
striking parallels in the observed occurrence of resistance to ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin
and tetracyclines in C. jejuni isolates from broiler meat, broilers and humans in Austria and in C. coli
isolates from broiler meat and humans in Portugal, with similar levels of resistance to each
antimicrobial seen in isolates originating from these different sources within each country. Austria and
Portugal were the only MSs who reported results for Campylobacter isolates from meat and from
human cases of infection. Interestingly, Austria also reported results for C. jejuni from meat from
turkeys and fattening turkeys; isolates from turkeys also closely paralleled the results obtained for
isolates from human cases, whereas ciprofloxacin resistance was rather higher in isolates from turkey
meat.
Erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter spp.

Macrolides are important compounds for the treatment of human Campylobacter infections. In
broilers, 5.9% of C. jejuni isolates from 25 MSs and 14.5% of C. coli from 8 MSs, were
microbiologically resistant to erythromycin. In turkeys, 2.5% of C. jejuni from 10 MSs and 43.3% of
C. coli from three MSs were erythromycin resistant. The occurrence of resistance to erythromycin in
Campylobacter spp. varied markedly between individual MSs.
Resistance to macrolides in Campylobacter spp. has generally been the result of mutations in
ribosomal RNA or ribosomal proteins and these mutations are thought to have incurred fitness costs,
accounting for the low occurrence of erythromycin resistance in many countries (Wang et al., 2014).
Ribosomal mutations can confer high-level erythromycin resistance (Gibreel and Taylor, 2006).
Transferable resistance to erythromycin was first described in Campylobacter isolates from food-
producing animals (including pigs, chickens and ducks) from China in 2014 (Qin et al., 2014, Wang et
al., 2014) and frequently resulted in high level resistance to erythromycin, with MICs recorded at
> 512 mg/L. Resistance is conferred by the rRNA methylase gene erm(B), which can be associated
with either chromosomal multidrug resistance islands or transferable plasmids.
The recent emergence of transferable macrolide resistance in Campylobacter may provide a means
whereby macrolide resistance can spread rapidly in Campylobacter. The situation may be compared to
tetracycline resistance, which is frequently plasmid mediated in Campylobacter, and is frequently
detected in many EU MSs at high levels.

Erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter spp. (continued)

Although transferable erythromycin resistance conferred by erm(B) generally results in high-level
resistance to erythromycin, mutational resistance can also result in high-level resistance to
erythromycin, but may equally result in lower MICs (above the ECOFF), dependent on the particular
mutations which have occurred. The distribution of erythromycin MICs can be used to identify the
numbers of isolates which have higher levels of resistance to erythromycin. These isolates may have
transferable or mutational erythromycin resistance and fluctuations in the number detected will
provide an early indication of changes in the occurrence of high-level macrolide resistance in
Campylobacter. Genetic investigation of isolates will be necessary for definitive characterisation of the
resistance mechanisms which are present.
Figure 3: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from broilers
Figure 4: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from fattening turkeys
Main findings regarding indicator commensal Escherichia coli

Twenty-seven MSs and two non-MSs reported quantitative data on AMR in indicator E. coli isolates
from poultry populations and meat derived thereof in 2014. Most of the data were related to isolates
from broilers and fattening turkeys; two MSs reported results for meat derived from these species.
Regarding broilers, the highest overall microbiological resistance levels observed at the reporting MS
group level were to ciprofloxacin (65.7%), nalidixic acid (62.6%), ampicillin (58.7%),
sulfamethoxazole (53.1%) and tetracycline (50.1%). Resistance to cefotaxime was 5.1% and was
similar to the resistance to ceftazidime (5.0%) in broilers. There was substantial variation in the level
of resistance to these antimicrobials between reporting MSs. Countries mostly reported relatively
stable resistance in E. coli isolates from Gallus gallus between 2008 and 2014. However, statistically
significant trends in resistance to all of these antimicrobials have been identified: these trends have
more commonly been increasing resistance than decreasing resistance.

MDR levels (reduced susceptibility to at least three antimicrobial classes according to ECOFFs) were
generally very high in indicator E. coli isolates from broilers (overall 54.6%), with extremely high level
in a number of reporting countries. Co-resistance/reduced susceptibility to the clinically important
antimicrobials, ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime, was also detected in 4.0% of isolates from broilers.
When the resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was interpreted using CBPs, only 1.9% isolates
from broilers displayed clinical resistance.
In the reporting group of MSs, resistance levels in indicator E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys were
generally lower than among isolates from broilers. The highest resistance levels observed were to
tetracyclines (70.9%), ampicillin (69.0%), sulfamethoxazole (51.1%), ciprofloxacin (50.3%) and
nalidixic acid (43.5%). The occurrence of resistance was variable between MSs for most of the
antimicrobials. Overall, only a few isolates (2.3%) expressed resistance to cefotaxime and 2.2% to
ceftazidime.
MDR (reduced susceptibility to at least three of the eleven antimicrobial classes tested) was overall
very high in fattening turkeys (59.3%). Generally low levels of microbiological co-resistance to
ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime in E. coli from fattening turkeys were reported and when the resistance
to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was interpreted using clinical breakpoints, only few isolates displayed
clinical resistance (overall at 0.8%).
Strains of E. coli are not separated on phenotypic characteristics (e.g. serotype) in the current
monitoring programme and a less detailed analysis is therefore possible than for Salmonella where
isolates can be sub-divided by serovar. A common core of microbiological resistance to ampicillin,
ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline and trimethoprim was observed in 41.2% of
all E .coli isolates from broilers. In fattening turkeys, one MDR pattern was predominant (ampicillin,
chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, tetracycline, sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim) and
accounted for more than 20.0% of the MDR patterns in E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys and
12.5% E. coli isolates data available. In contrast to the situation in Salmonella, tigecycline resistance
was infrequently detected in E. coli.
Colistin-resistant indicator E. coli isolates were found by several MSs originating from broilers and
fattening turkeys. Further information is provided in the text box below.
Monitoring was enhanced in 2014 to allow further characterisation of third-generation cephalosporin
and carbapenem resistance in indicator E. coli. The presumptive ESBL phenotype alone was more
frequently detected than the AmpC phenotype in indicator E. coli from both broiler and fattening
turkeys, although at low levels, in less than 5% of isolates in each animal population. An AmpC
together with an ESBL phenotype was detected in 0.5% of isolates from broilers, but was not
detected in isolates from fattening turkeys. Indicator E. coli is considered to represent a reservoir of
ESBL and AmpC resistance, which may be transferred to other organisms such as Salmonella. The
proportions of indicator E. coli showing such ESBL and AmpC phenotypic resistance were higher than
those observed in Salmonella (Table 2: below), but more detailed investigations, including comparison
of resistance genes and plasmids, would be required to confirm the inferred phenotype and
investigate whether there was any direct relationship between the resistance detected in the
populations of E. coli and Salmonella included in the monitoring.

E. coli from poultry in 2014
Presumptive Presumptive Presumptive

ESBL phenotype AmpC phenotype ESBL + AmpC phenotype
n (% R) n (% R) n (% R)
Broilers (N=4,179) 152 (3.6%) 73 (1.7%) 20 (0.5%)
Turkeys (N=1,457) 30 (2.1%) 6 (0.4%) 0 (0%)
N: number of the isolates tested; n: number of the isolates resistant; % R: percentage of resistant isolates; ESBL: extended
spectrum beta-lactamase.

Main findings regarding colistin resistance in Salmonella and E. coli

A specific gene, mcr-1, has recently been identified in E. coli in China (Liu et al., 2015) which confers
resistance to colistin and is located on a plasmid (a mobile genetic element able to transfer between
different bacteria). The mcr-1 gene encodes a phosphoethanolamine transferase, which adds a
phosphoethanolamine moiety to the lipid A of the lipopolysaccharide component of the bacterial cell
wall. Previously, resistance to colistin was only described as related to chromosomal alterations, which
also affected lipid A and reduced the binding of colistin to the cell wall, but these chromosomal
alterations were not transferable.
This is a major development because prior to this discovery, all known resistance mechanisms to
colistin were not transferable between different bacteria and could only be inherited from a mother
bacterial cell by its own daughter cells on cell division. The research to identify the resistance gene
was stimulated by an observed rise in resistance to colistin in food-producing animals and food in
China; the monitoring of resistance to colistin in food-producing animals and food in Europe assumes
a much greater prominence with the detection of transferable resistance in Asia. As this report was
being prepared, the Technical University of Denmark announced that they had screened the whole
genome sequences of approximately 3,000 Gram-negative bacteria (E. coli and Salmonella) for the
mcr-1 gene. The gene was found in one patient, who suffered from a blood infection in 2015 and in
five food samples that have been imported from 2012 to 2014 (Hasman et al., 2015). Other MSs have
started similar scanning of available strain collections to check for the presence of the gene in
question. Further reports on the detection of this gene have been recently made by Belgium
(Malhotra-Kumar et al., 2016), France (Webb et al., 2015; Haenni et al., 2016), Germany
(Falgenhauer et al., 2016), Italy (Battisti, 2016 ProMed), the Netherlands (Wageningen, 2015; Arcilla,
2016), Switzerland (Poirel et al., 2016) and the United Kingdom (Woodmansey et al., 2015).
2014 was the first year of mandatory EU monitoring for colistin resistance in Salmonella and E. coli
from animals and the results will provide a baseline in poultry against which changes can be
measured. Colistin resistance can be conferred by the transferable mcr-1 gene, or related to a number
of other different mechanisms (Olaitan et al., 2014). In addition, some serovars of Salmonella, namely
those which possess the O:9 somatic antigen, appear to show a degree of intrinsic resistance to
colistin (Agers et al., 2012). The level of colistin resistance in E. coli conferred by mcr-1 was
generally 48 mg/L (Liu et al., 2015) only slightly above the ECOFF for E. coli of > 2mg/L. The MIC
distributions for E. coli and Salmonella in broilers and turkeys are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Some MSs encountered technical difficulties in accurately determining colistin susceptibility. The
reported occurrence of colistin resistance is unlikely to equate directly to the occurrence
of mcr-1 gene, because a number of different resistance mechanisms can confer colistin
resistance (Olaitan et al., 2014). A number of colistin-resistant isolates from the EU
monitoring programme are undergoing testing either at the EURL-AR or at the MS level
for the presence of mcr-1 gene. Thus, more detailed data on colistin resistance may be
available at the MS level later in 2016, dependent on the outcome of these further
investigations.
Figure 5: Colistin resistance in Salmonella

Resistance to colistin (continued)
Figure 6: Colistin resistance in indicator E. coli
The MIC distributions reveal the presence of Salmonella and E. coli isolates with colistin MICs
> 2 mg/L; however, as mentioned above, it has been previously recognised that certain Salmonella
serovars belonging to group D in the KauffmannWhite typing scheme (which possess O:9 somatic
antigens) are intrinsically resistant to colistin at higher levels than other non-Group D serovars (Agers
et al., 2012). Group D Salmonella serovars include S. Enteritidis which is highly represented among
the Salmonella isolates tested in broilers, accounting for 13.5% of isolates. Colistin resistance was
observed in 8.3% of all Salmonella isolates from broilers and 10.5% from laying hens; 72% of these
colistin-resistant Salmonella isolates from broilers and 80% from laying hens were S. Enteritidis. A
large proportion of the resistance to colistin detected in Salmonella in Gallus gallus therefore appears
to be related to the previously described higher level of intrinsic resistance of S. Enteritidis. According
to some of the reports mentioned above, for other serovars such as S. Paratyphi B var. Java,
S. Schwarzengrund, S. Typhimurium and or monofasic variants, the presence of mcr-1 could play a
role.
For the first time in 2014, colistin resistance was monitored in indicator E. coli in poultry, and 0.9% of
E. coli from broilers and 7.4% of E. coli from turkeys were resistant to colistin in the reporting MSs.
Main findings regarding meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

A low number of MSs reported the monitoring of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in
food. MRSA was detected in meat from broilers, turkeys and pigs in three countries, with the highest
prevalence detected in turkey meat and the lowest in broiler meat. The occurrence of MRSA in meat
and products derived from animals may reflect colonisation of those animals with MRSA. In relation to
healthy food-producing animals, MRSA was detected in laying hens and breeding flocks in one MS.
There was a large degree of variation between MSs in the occurrence of MRSA in pigs, as 0.126.5%
of animals/herd/slaughter batches tested positive. Molecular typing data were reported by two
countries in relation to isolates from pigs; the majority of isolates were spa-type t034 with lower
numbers of t011; both of these spa-types belonging to MRSA clonal complex (CC) 398, the common
livestock-associated type of MRSA occurring in Europe. Two MSs examined dairy cows for MRSA; the
proportion of animals which tested positive equalled 9.7% in one MS and 16.9% in the other MS.
Several MSs reported results of clinical investigations which yielded MRSA in food-producing animals,
including Hungary which reported detection in rabbits (as did the Netherlands) and a pheasant in
addition to chickens, sheep and cattle. Considering companion animals, MRSA was detected in cats,
dogs and horses in some MSs.
Temporal trends in the occurrence of MRSA in animals could be only assessed in Switzerland, which
reported on the occurrence of MRSA in fattening pigs at slaughter obtained by testing nasal swabs
in consecutive years from 2009 to 2014. The numbers of animals positive for MRSA slowly increased
over this period, from 2.2% in 2009 to 26.5% in 2014. The majority of these MRSA isolates belonged
to spa-type t034, CC398, whereas much lower numbers of MRSA sequence type ST49 were also

reported. The increase is primarily the result of the diffusion within the Swiss population of fattening
pigs of clones of spa-types t034 and t011, both belonging to the clonal complex CC398.
Monitoring for MRSA in food and animals is performed on a voluntary basis and consequently a
relatively low number of MSs/non-MSs (four) reported the results of MRSA monitoring of either food
and/or food-producing animals. MRSA detection methods can be very susceptible and consequently
detect low levels of the organism; food is not currently regarded as a source of livestock-associated
MRSA infection for humans. Three isolates of a healthcare-associated MRSA (spa-type t032) recovered
from broiler meat at retail may have originated from human sources, as this spa-type is not well-
recognised in animals, but is common in humans in some countries.
The voluntary monitoring performed reflects the priorities of MSs and although monitoring is not co-
ordinated across MSs, LA-MRSA is evidently widespread geographically and in diverse mammalian and
avian host species. It is unclear whether the broad range of species in which colonisation has been
detected reflects diffusion in those different species and long-term colonisation, or transient cross-
colonisation between species on mixed farms, from species in which colonisation occurs readily, such
as pigs.

Table of contents
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................1
Summary .......................................................................................................................................3
List of tables ................................................................................................................................ 16
List of figures ............................................................................................................................... 18
Legal basis ................................................................................................................................... 21
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 22
1.1. Monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance at the EU level ..................................... 22
1.2. Further harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance .................................................. 22
1.2.1. New legislation on antimicrobial resistance monitoring in animals and food .......................... 23
1.2.2. Developments in the harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in humans .............. 23
1.3. The 2014 EU Summary Report on AMR .............................................................................. 24
2. Materials and methods ...................................................................................................... 25
2.1. Antimicrobial susceptibility data from humans available in 2014 ........................................... 25
2.1.1. Salmonella data of human origin ........................................................................................ 25
2.1.2. Campylobacter data of human origin .................................................................................. 26
2.2. Antimicrobial susceptibility data from animals and food in 2014 ........................................... 29
2.2.1. Data reported under Directive 2003/99/EC and Decision 2013/652/EU ................................. 29
2.2.2. Data validation.................................................................................................................. 33
2.2.3. Analyses of antimicrobial resistance data ............................................................................ 33
2.2.4. Analysis of multidrug resistance and co-resistance data ....................................................... 35
2.2.5. Identification of presumptive phenotypes of ESBL-, AmpC- and/or
carbapenemase-producers ................................................................................................. 36
2.2.6. Data on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) .................................................. 37
3. Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 38
3.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella ................................................................................ 38
3.1.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates from humans ................................................ 38
3.1.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates from animals and food .................................. 60
3.1.3. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 106
3.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter ........................................................................ 110
3.2.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from humans ........................................ 110
3.2.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from animals and food .......................... 115
3.2.3. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 127
3.3. Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli .......................................................... 132
3.3.1. Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from animals .......................... 133
3.3.2. Multiple drug resistance patterns in indicator Escherichia coli isolates ................................. 149
3.3.3. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 151
3.4. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ......................................................................... 154
3.4.1. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food and animals ........................................... 154
3.4.2. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 160
3.5. Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in Escherichia coli and
Salmonella ...................................................................................................................... 163
3.5.1. Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in Salmonella isolates from food
and animals (routine monitoring) ..................................................................................... 165
3.5.2. Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in indicator Escherichia coli
isolates from food and animals (routine monitoring) .......................................................... 168
3.5.3. Specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli ............................... 173
3.5.4. Comparison of cefotaxime resistance in Salmonella spp. and indicator Escherichia coli
isolates from animals....................................................................................................... 179
3.5.5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 181
References ................................................................................................................................. 184
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 190
Appendix: List of usable data ...................................................................................................... 194

List of tables

Salmonella from poultry in 2014 ....................................................................................6
E. coli from poultry in 2014 ......................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Antimicrobials reported, methods used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria
applied by MSs for human Salmonella AST data in 2014 ................................................ 27
Table 4: Antimicrobials reported, method used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria
applied by MSs for human Campylobacter AST data in 2014 .......................................... 28
Table 5: Panel of antimicrobial substances included in AMR monitoring, EUCAST ECOFFs and
concentration ranges tested in Salmonella spp. and indicator commensal E. coli (first
panel) ........................................................................................................................ 32
concentration ranges tested in C. jejuni and C. coli ....................................................... 32
Table 7: Panel of antimicrobial substances, EUCAST ECOFFs and concentration ranges used for
testing only Salmonella spp. and indicator commensal E. coli isolates resistant to
cefotaxime, ceftazidime or meropenem (second panel) ................................................. 32
Table 8: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. (all non-typhoidal serovars) from humans per
country in 2014 .......................................................................................................... 42
Table 9: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Enteritidis from humans per country in 2014 ........ 45
Table 10: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Infantis from humans per country in 2014 ........... 50
Table 11: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Kentucky from humans per country in 2014 ......... 55
Table 12: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Derby from humans per country in 2014 .............. 57
Table 13: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp. isolates from meat
from broilers and meat from fattening turkeys in 2014 .................................................. 63
Table 14: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp. isolates from
broilers in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs .................................................................. 67
Table 15: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from
broilers in 2014 .......................................................................................................... 76
Table 16: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Infantis isolates from
broilers in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs .................................................................. 78
Table 17: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp. isolates from laying
hens in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs ...................................................................... 85
Table 18: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from
laying hens in 2014..................................................................................................... 91
Table 19: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Infantis isolates from
laying hens in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs ............................................................ 93
Table 20: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp.,
Salmonella Kentucky and Salmonella Derby isolates from turkeys in 2014 ...................... 96
Table 21: Occurrence of resistance to cefotaxime among Salmonella spp. from broilers, laying hens
and fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs and EUCAST CBPs ................ 102
Table 22: Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni from humans per country in 2014 ...... 112
Table 23: Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter coli from humans per country in 2014 .......... 114
Table 24: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter coli and
Campylobacter jejuni from meat in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs ............................ 116
Table 25: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter from broilers in
2014, using harmonised ECOFFs ................................................................................ 118
Table 26: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter from fattening
turkeys in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs ................................................................ 125
Table 27: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in indicator Escherichia coli from
broilers in MSs reporting data in 2014 ........................................................................ 134
Table 28: Co-resistance to (fluoro)quinolones and third-generation cephalosporins in indicator
Escherichia coli from broilers in MSs, 2014 ................................................................. 141
Table 29: PCU-broilers, in 27 MSs, 2014 ................................................................................... 144

Table 30: Resistance in indicator E. coli from broilers assessed by the percentage of resistant
isolates (Total) and summary indicator (weighted mean of the proportions of resistant
isolates in the reporting MSs) in the EU, 27 MSs, 2014 ................................................ 145
Table 31: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in indicator Escherichia coli from
fattening turkeys in reporting countries, in 2014 ......................................................... 146
Table 32: Co-resistance to fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins in indicator
Escherichia coli from fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014 ................................................... 149
Table 33: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food, 2014 .............................................. 155
Table 34: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food-producing animals (excluding clinical
investigations), 2014................................................................................................. 156
Table 35: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food-producing animals, clinical
investigations, 2014 .................................................................................................. 157
Table 36: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in companion animals, clinical investigations,
2014 ........................................................................................................................ 158
Table 37: Temporal occurrence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals .............. 159
Table 38: Occurrence of resistance (%) to selected antimicrobials in MRSA from food and animals,
2014 ........................................................................................................................ 160
Table 39: Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam compounds in Salmonella spp. isolates from
broilers, laying hens and meat from broilers collected within the routine monitoring and
subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014 ................................................. 166
Table 40: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in Salmonella spp. isolates from
subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014(a) .............................................. 167
Table 41: Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam and carbapenem compounds in indicator E. coli
isolates from broiler flocks collected within the routine monitoring and subjected to
supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014 .................................................................... 169
Table 42: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in indicator E. coli isolates from broiler
flocks collected within the routine monitoring and subjected to supplementary testing
(panel 2) in 2014 ...................................................................................................... 170
Table 43: Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam and carbapenem compounds in indicator E. coli
isolates from fattening turkeys collected within the routine monitoring and subjected to
supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014 .................................................................... 171
Table 44: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in indicator E. coli isolates from
fattening turkeys collected within the routine monitoring and subjected to supplementary
testing (panel 2) in 2014 .......................................................................................... 172
Table 45: Prevalence of carbapenemase-producing E. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys
collected within the specific carbapenemase-producing microorganisms monitoring in Italy
in 2014 .................................................................................................................... 174
Table 46: Prevalence of ESBL-/AmpC-producing E. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys within
the specific ESBL-/AmpC-producing E. coli monitoring in Italy in 2014 ......................... 174
Table 47: Prevalence of ESBL-/AmpC-producing Salmonella from broilers and fattening turkeys
within national specific ESBL-/AmpC-producing Salmonella monitoring in Italy in 2014 .. 175
Table 48: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Escherichia coli from broilers and
fattening turkeys in reporting countries collected within thespecific ESBL-/Ampc-
/carbapenemase-producing monitoring (Panel 1), in 2014 ........................................... 176
Table 49: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Escherichia coli from broilers and
fattening turkeys in reporting countries collected within the specific ESBL-/Ampc-
/carbapenemase-producing monitoring (Panel 1), in 2014 ........................................... 177
Table 50: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in E. coli isolates from meat from
broilers, broilers and fattening turkeys collected within the specific ESBL-/Ampc-
/carbapenemase-producing monitoring and subjected to supplementary testing or
molecular typing confirmation in 2014(a) ..................................................................... 178
Table 51: Resistance (%) to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella spp. and indicator E. coli
isolates in MSs in 2014 testing both bacterial species in broilers or fattening turkeys .... 180

List of figures
Figure 1: Breakdown of serovars in Salmonella isolates from broiler flocks tested for antimicrobial
susceptibility in the EU, 2014 .......................................................................................7
Figure 2: Proportions of isolates fully susceptible, resistant to one to two classes of substances and
multiresistant in the most commonly recovered Salmonella serovars in broiler flocks in
the EU, 2014 ...............................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from broilers ........................................ 10
Figure 4: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from fattening turkeys .......................... 10
Figure 5: Colistin resistance in Salmonella ................................................................................. 12
Figure 6: Colistin resistance in indicator E. coli........................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Comparison of CBPs for non-susceptibility (intermediate and resistant categories
combined) and ECOFFs used to interpret MIC data reported for Salmonella spp. from
humans, animals or food ............................................................................................ 39
Figure 8: Frequency distribution of Salmonella spp. isolates from humans completely susceptible or
resistant to one to eight antimicrobial classes in 2014 .................................................. 41
Figure 9: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from humans completely
susceptible or resistant to one to nine antimicrobial classes in 2014 ............................. 44
Figure 10: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among S. Enteritidis from human cases in
reporting countries in 2014 ........................................................................................ 47
Figure 11: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among S. Enteritidis from human cases in
Figure 12: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among S. Enteritidis from human cases in
Figure 13: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Infantis isolates from humans completely
Figure 14: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among S. Infantis from human cases in
Figure 15: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among S. Infantis from human cases in
Figure 16: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among S. Infantis from human cases in
Figure 17: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Kentucky isolates from humans completely
Figure 18: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from humans completely
Figure 19: Frequency distribution of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- isolates
from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to eight antimicrobial classes in
2014 ......................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 20: Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to
nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from broiler meat in MSs in 2014 .............. 61
nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkey meat in MSs in 2014 62
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from broilers in MSs in 2014 ................... 64
Figure 23: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
countries reporting MIC data in 2014 .......................................................................... 65
Figure 24: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
Figure 25: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Infantis from broilers in MSs in 2014 .............. 69
Figure 27: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers in
Figure 28: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers in

Figure 29: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers in
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers in MSs in 2014 ........... 72
Figure 31: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers
in countries reporting MIC data in 2014 ...................................................................... 73
Figure 32: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers
in countries reporting MIC data in 2014 ...................................................................... 73
Figure 33: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers in
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Kentuky from broilers in MSs in 2014 ............. 75
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from laying hens in MSs in 2014 ............. 80
Figure 36: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens in
Figure 37: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens in
Figure 38: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens in
Figure 39: Trends in ampicillin, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance in tested
Salmonella spp. isolates from Gallus gallus in reporting MSs, 20082014, quantitative
data.......................................................................................................................... 83
Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from Gallus gallus in reporting MSs, 20082014,
quantitative data ....................................................................................................... 84
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from laying hens in MSs in 2014 ..... 87
Figure 42: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
hens in countries reporting MIC data in 2014 .............................................................. 88
Figure 43: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
Figure 44: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Infantis from laying hens in MSs in 2014 ........ 90
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Kentucky from laying hens in MSs in 2014 ...... 90
Salmonella spp. isolates from turkeys in reporting MSs, 20082014, quantitative data ... 98
Figure 48: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014 ......................................................................................................... 99
Figure 49: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014 ......................................................................................................... 99
Figure 50: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014 ....................................................................................................... 100
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkeys in 2014 .............. 100
Figure 52: Tigecycline resistance in Salmonella spp. .................................................................. 109
Figure 53: Comparison of CBPs and ECOFFs used to interpret MIC data reported for
Campylobacter spp. from humans, animals or food.................................................... 111
Figure 54: Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans completely
susceptible or resistant to one to four antimicrobial classes in 2014 ............................ 112
Figure 55: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from human
cases in reporting countries in 2014 ......................................................................... 113
Figure 56: Spatial distribution of erythromycin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from human
cases in reporting countries in 2014 ......................................................................... 113

Figure 57: Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates from humans completely susceptible
or resistant to one to four antimicrobial classes in 2014 ............................................. 114
Figure 58: Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and nalidixic acid resistance in Campylobacter jejuni
from broilers in MSs, 20082014 .............................................................................. 119
Figure 59: Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and nalidixic acid resistance in Campylobacter coli
from broilers in MSs, 20082014 .............................................................................. 120
Figure 60: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from broilers
of Gallus gallus in reporting countries in 2014 ........................................................... 121
Figure 61: Spatial distribution of erythromycin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from broilers
of Gallus gallus in reporting countries in 2014 ........................................................... 121
Figure 62: Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates completely susceptible and
resistant to one to four antimicrobials, in broilers in MSs, 2014 .................................. 123
Figure 63: Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates completely susceptible and resistant
to one to four antimicrobials, in broilers in MSs, 2014 ................................................ 123
Figure 64: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from fattening
turkeys in reporting countries in 2014 ....................................................................... 126
Figure 65: Spatial distribution of erythromycin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from
fattening turkeys in reporting countries in 2014 ......................................................... 126
resistant to one to four antimicrobials, in fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014 .................... 127
Figure 67: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys ..... 131
Figure 68: Trends in ampicillin and tetracyclines resistance in indicator Escherichia coli from broilers
in reporting countries, 20082014 ............................................................................ 137
Figure 69: Trends in cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance in indicator
Escherichia coli from broilers in reporting countries, 20082014 ................................. 138
Figure 70: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
broilers in reporting countries, in 2014 ...................................................................... 139
Figure 71: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
broilers in reporting countries, in 2014 ...................................................................... 139
Figure 72: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from broilers
in reporting countries, in 2014.................................................................................. 140
Figure 73: Frequency distribution of Escherichia coli isolates completely susceptible and resistant to
one to twelve antimicrobials in broilers in reporting countries, 2014 ........................... 141
fattening turkeys in reporting countries, in 2014 ........................................................ 147
Figure 76: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
one to 12 antimicrobials in fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014 ......................................... 148

Legal basis
According to Directive 2003/99/EC on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, Member States
(MSs) are obliged to monitor and report antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Salmonella and
Campylobacter isolates obtained from healthy food-producing animals and from food. Commission
Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU of 12 November 2013 1 sets up priorities for the monitoring of
AMR from a public health perspective, establishes a list of combinations of bacterial species, food-
producing animal populations and foodstuffs and lays down detailed requirements on the harmonised
monitoring and reporting of AMR.
The data collection on human diseases from MSs is conducted in accordance with Decision
1082/2013/EU2 on serious cross-border threats to health, which in October 2013 replaced Decision
2119/98/EC on setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable
diseases in the European Union (EU). The case definitions to be followed when reporting data on
infectious diseases, including AMR, to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
are described in Decision 2012/506/EU3. ECDC has provided data on zoonotic infections in humans, as
well as their analyses, for the Community Summary Reports since 2005. Since 2007, data on human
cases have been reported from The European Surveillance System (TESSy), maintained by ECDC.
About EFSA
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), located in Parma, Italy, and established and funded by
the EU as an independent agency in 2002, provides objective scientific advice, in close collaboration
with national authorities and in open consultation with its stakeholders, with a direct or indirect impact
on food and feed safety, including animal health and welfare and plant protection. EFSA is also
consulted on nutrition in relation to EU legislation. EFSAs risk assessments provide risk managers (the
European Commission (EC), the European Parliament and the Council) with a sound scientific basis for
defining policy-driven legislative or regulatory measures required to ensure a high level of consumer
protection with regard to food and feed safety. EFSA communicates to the public in an open and
transparent way on all matters within its remit. Collection and analysis of scientific data, identification
of emerging risks and scientific support to the EC, particularly in the case of a food crisis, are also part
of EFSAs mandate, as laid down in founding Regulation (EC) No 178/20024 of 28 January 2002.
About ECDC
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), an EU agency based in Stockholm,
Sweden, was established in 2005. The objective of ECDC is to strengthen Europes defences against
infectious diseases. According to Article 3 of founding Regulation (EC) No 851/20045 of 21 April 2004,
ECDCs mission is to identify, assess and communicate current and emerging threats to human health
posed by infectious diseases. In order to achieve this goal, ECDC works in partnership with national
public health bodies across Europe to strengthen and develop EU-wide disease surveillance and early
warning systems. By working with experts throughout Europe, ECDC pools Europes knowledge in
health to develop authoritative scientific opinions about the risks posed by current and emerging
infectious diseases.
Terms of reference
The EU system for the monitoring and collection of information on zoonoses is based on the Zoonoses
Directive 2003/99/EC, which obliges EU MSs to collect relevant and, where applicable, comparable
1
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU of 12 November 2013 on the monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial
resistance in zoonotic and commensal bacteria. OJ L 303, 14.11.2013, p. 2639.
2
Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats
to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC. OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 115.
3
Commission Decision 2012/506/EU amending Decision 2002/253/EC laying down case definitions for reporting communicable
diseases to the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. OJ L 262,
27.9.2012, p. 157.
4
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general
principles and requirements of food law, establishing the EFSA and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. OJ L 31,
1.2.2002, p. 124.
5
Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European centre
for disease prevention and control. OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 111.

data on zoonoses, zoonotic agents, AMR and food-borne outbreaks. In addition, MSs are required to
assess trends and sources of these agents, as well as outbreaks in their territory, submitting an
annual report each year by the end of May to the EC covering the data collected. EFSA is assigned the
tasks of examining these data and publishing the EU annual Summary Reports. In accordance with
Article 9 of the Zoonoses Directive 2003/99/EC, EFSA shall examine the submitted national reports of
the EU MSs and publish by the end of November a summary report on the trends and sources of
zoonoses, zoonotic agents and AMR in the EU.
1. Introduction
The antimicrobial agents used in food-producing animals in Europe are frequently the same, or belong
to the same classes, as those used in human medicine. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is the main
undesirable side effect of antimicrobial use in both humans and animals, and results from the
continuous positive selection of resistant bacterial clones, whether these are pathogenic, commensal
or even environmental bacteria. This will modify the population structure of microbial communities,
leading to accelerated evolutionary trends with unpredictable consequences for human and animal
health. Both the route of administration and the administered quantities of antimicrobials may differ
between humans and food-producing animals; moreover, there are important variations between and
within food-producing animal populations, as well as between countries.
Bacterial resistance to antimicrobials occurring in food-producing animals can spread to people not
only via food-borne routes, but also by routes such as water or other environmental contamination, as
well as through direct animal contact. Campylobacter, Salmonella and some strains of Escherichia coli
are examples of zoonotic bacteria which can infect people by the food-borne route. Infections with
bacteria which are resistant to antimicrobials may result in treatment failures or necessitate the use of
second-line antimicrobials for therapy. The commensal bacterial flora can also form a reservoir of
resistance genes, which may be transferred between bacterial species, including organisms capable of
causing disease in both humans and animals (EFSA, 2008).
The monitoring of AMR in zoonotic and commensal bacteria in food-producing animals and food
thereof is a prerequisite for understanding the development and diffusion of resistance, providing
relevant risk assessment data, and evaluating targeted interventions. Resistance monitoring entails
specific and continuous data collection, analysis and reporting and enables to follow temporal trends
in the occurrence and distribution of resistance to antimicrobials. Resistance monitoring should also
allow for the identification of emerging or specific patterns of resistance.
1.1. Monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance at the EU level

Based on Article 33 in Regulation (EC) 178/2002, EFSA is responsible for examining data on AMR
collected from the Member States (MSs) in accordance with Directive 2003/99/EC and for preparing
the European Union (EU) Summary Report from the results. This EU Summary Report 2014 includes
data related to the occurrence of AMR both in isolates from animals and foodstuffs and in isolates
from human cases. The report is a joint collaboration between the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) with the assistance of
EFSAs contractor the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) in the United Kingdom. MSs, other
reporting countries, the European Commission (EC) and the relevant EU Reference Laboratory (EURL-
AR) were consulted, while preparing the report. The efforts made by MSs, the reporting non-MSs and
the EC in the reporting of data on AMR and in the preparation of this report are gratefully
acknowledged.
1.2. Further harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance

The main issues when comparing AMR data originating from different countries are the use of
different laboratory methods and different interpretive criteria of resistance. These issues have been
addressed by the development of ECDCs protocol for harmonised monitoring and reporting of
resistance in humans and recent legislation on harmonised monitoring in food-producing animals and
food thereof.

1.2.1. New legislation on antimicrobial resistance monitoring in animals and

food
Commission Decision 2013/652/EU of 12 November 2013 6 establishes a list of combinations of
bacterial species, food-producing animal populations and food products and sets up priorities for the
monitoring of AMR from a public health perspective. Monitoring of AMR in E. coli became mandatory,
as it is for Salmonella and Campylobacter jejuni in the major food-producing animal populations
broilers, laying hens, fattening turkeys, fattening pigs, calves - and their derived meat. The specific
monitoring of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-, AmpC- and carbapenemase-producing
Salmonella and indicator commensal E. coli is also foreseen. The collection and reporting of data are
to be performed at the isolate level, in order to enable more in-depth analyses to be conducted, in
particular on the occurrence of MDR. Representative sampling should be performed according to
general provisions of the legislation and to detailed technical specifications issued by EFSA. Monitoring
of AMR in food-producing animals should be performed at the level of domestically produced animal
populations, corresponding to different production types with the aim of collecting data that, in the
future, could be combined with those on exposure to antimicrobials. Provisions have been taken
where possible to exploit samples that would be collected under other existing control programmes.
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU entered into force in 2014, as did Commission
Implementing Decision 2013/653/EU of 12 November 2013 concerning financial aid towards a
coordinated control plan for AMR monitoring in zoonotic agents in MSs in 2014.
Microdilution methods for testing should be used and result should be interpreted by the application of
EUCAST epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) values7 for the interpretation of microbiological resistance.
The harmonised panel of antimicrobials used for Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli and Enterococcus
spp. is broadened with the inclusion of substances that either are important for human health or can
provide clearer insight into the resistance mechanisms involved. The concentration ranges to be used
ensure that both the ECOFF and the CBPare included so that comparability of results with human data
is made possible. Within the animal and food monitoring programmes, the new legislation has
specified those types of animals which should be monitored in particular years. Ensuring that all MSs
test the same species in a given year has simplified the presentation and increased the comparability
of the results, because each annual report will now focus primarily on the target species for a given
year.
A particular feature of the revised monitoring protocol for Salmonella and E. coli is the use of a
supplementary panel of antimicrobials for testing isolates which show resistance to third-generation
cephalosporins or carbapenems in the first panel. The reporting of isolate-based data, which was
introduced several years ago, has facilitated the introduction of this change, which allows in depth
phenotypic characterisation of certain mechanisms of resistance, for example, third-generation
cephalosporin resistance and carbapenem resistance can be further characterised. It seems likely that
this principle can be further developed and refined in time.
External quality assurance is provided by the EURL-AR, which distribute panels of well-characterised
organisms to all MSs for susceptibility testing. MSs must test and obtain the correct results in such
tests to ensure proficiency. The EURL-AR also provides a source of reference for MSs in cases where
there are issues or problems with the susceptibility test methodology.
1.2.2. Developments in the harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in

humans
Together with its Food- and Waterborne Diseases and Zoonoses (FWD) network, ECDC has developed
an EU protocol for harmonised monitoring of AMR in human Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates
(ECDC, 2014). This document is intended for the National Public Health Reference Laboratories to
6
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU of 12 November 2013 on the monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial
resistance in zoonotic and commensal bacteria. OJ L 303, 14.11.2013, p. 2639.
7
The epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) values separate the naive, susceptible wild-type bacterial populations from isolates that
have developed reduced susceptibility to a given antimicrobial agent (Kahlmeter et al., 2003). The ECOFFs may differ from
breakpoints used for clinical purposes, which are defined against a background of clinically relevant data, including
therapeutic indication, clinical response data, dosing schedules, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The use of
harmonised methods and ECOFFs ensures the comparability of data over time at the country level and also facilitated the
comparison of resistance between MSs.

guide the susceptibility testing required for EU surveillance and reporting to ECDC. Consultation was
also sought from EFSA, EUCAST and the EURL-AR to facilitate comparison of data between countries
and with results from the AMR monitoring performed in isolates from animals and from food products.
The protocol is effective from 2014 and supports the implementation of the Commission Action Plan
on AMR. One of the recommendations is that, for the purpose of the joint report with EFSA, human
data should also be interpreted based on ECOFFs. As this requires quantitative data, ECDC introduced
quantitative antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) data reporting in last years data collection and
encourages countries to use it. As the EU protocol is not a legal document but a recommendation and
joint agreement, it is up to each National Public Health Reference Laboratory whether to adapt to the
protocol. Most laboratories did adopt the new priority panel of antimicrobials suggested in the
protocol, in 2014, whereas the optional antimicrobials were tested by fewer laboratories. The
proposed testing algorithm for screening and confirmation of extended spectrum beta-lactamase
(ESBL)-producing Salmonella spp., including detection of pAmpC, however, does not seem to have
been implemented or at least not reported to ECDC as planned.
Since the majority of laboratories use disk diffusion for AST, ECDC set up a joint project with EUCAST
to establish inhibition zone diameter ECOFFs for C. jejuni, C. coli and Salmonella spp. New disk
diffusion ECOFFs were established for nine antimicrobials for Salmonella spp. in 2014 (Matuschek et
al., 2015), whereas the project is still ongoing for C. jejuni and C. coli.
External quality assurance to support laboratories in implementing the recommended test methods
and antimicrobials and obtaining high-quality AST results is provided by Statens Serum Institute in
Denmark through a contract with ECDC.
1.3. The 2014 EU summary report on AMR

The majority of the data reported to EFSA by MSs comprises data collected in accordance with
Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU. The antimicrobial susceptibility data reported to
EFSA for 2014 for Campylobacter, Salmonella, indicator E. coli isolates from animals and food were
analysed and all quantitative data were interpreted using ECOFFs. This report also includes results of
phenotypic monitoring of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins caused by ESBLs and AmpC
beta-lactamases in Salmonella and indicator E. coli, as well as the investigation at the EU level of the
occurrence of complete susceptibility and MDR in data reported at the isolate level. A list of the
antimicrobials included in this evaluation of MDR can be found in Section 2, Materials and methods.
The report also includes resistance in Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates from human cases of
salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis, respectively. These data were reported by MSs to The European
Surveillance System (TESSy) at ECDC either as quantitative or categorical/qualitative data. The
quantitative data were interpreted using EUCAST ECOFFs, where available. The qualitative data had
been interpreted using CBPs to guide medical treatment of the patient. The breakpoints for clinical
resistance are, in many cases, less sensitive than the ECOFF for a specific bacteriumdrug
combination resulting in higher levels of microbiological resistance than clinical resistance. By
combining the categories of clinically resistant and intermediate resistant into a non-susceptible
category, however, close correspondence with the ECOFF was achieved.
CBPs enable clinicians to choose the appropriate treatment based on information relevant to the
individual patient. ECOFFs recognise that epidemiologists need to be aware of small changes in
bacterial susceptibility, which may indicate emerging resistance and allow for appropriate control
measures to be considered. ECOFFs, CBPs and related concepts regarding antimicrobial
resistance/susceptibility are presented in detail hereafter.

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Antimicrobial susceptibility data from humans available in 2014

More than half of the reporting countries submitted isolate-based measured values (quantitative AST
data) to ECDC for 2014, which is a substantial increase from 30% of the countries reporting measured
values in the previous year when isolate-based reporting was introduced. The remaining countries
submitted interpreted categorical (qualitative) AST data via the case-based reporting. As the data
collected by EFSA are also quantitative, moving towards quantitative data from human isolates
improves comparability between the two sectors, as the same interpretive criteria can be applied to
the two data sets.
As in the 2013 report, the categories of clinically intermediate and clinically resistant in the
interpreted data were combined in a non-susceptible group. Alignment of the susceptible category
with the wild type category based on ECOFFs and of the non-susceptible category with the ECOFF-
based non-wild type category provides better comparability and more straightforward interpretation
of the data for most antimicrobial agents included (Figure 7, human section in Salmonella chapter).
2.1.1. Salmonella data of human origin

Twenty-one MSs and Norway provided data for 2014 on human Salmonella isolates. Twelve countries
(Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal and Romania) reported isolate-based AST results as measured values (inhibition zone
diameters or minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs)) which was five countries more than for 2013.
Ten countries reported case-based AST results interpreted as susceptible (S), intermediate (I) or
resistant (R) according to the CBPs applied (Table 3).
In 2013, the national public health laboratories within the FWD network agreed on a panel of priority
antimicrobials and optional antimicrobials to test for and report to ECDC (ECDC, 2014). Two
antimicrobials - ceftazidime and meropenem were new in the priority panel compared to earlier
recommendations. Whereas only a few laboratories had started to test for susceptibility to these
substances in 2013, the majority of laboratories were able to report on them for 2014.
Due to the problems in detecting low-level fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella spp. using disk
diffusion, nalidixic acid has been used as a marker for fluoroquinolone resistance. This is also
recommended in the EU protocol for harmonised monitoring of AMR in human Salmonella and
Campylobacter isolates (ECDC, 2014). After the discovery that plasmid-mediated fluoroquinolone
resistance is often not detected using nalidixic acid, EUCAST studied alternative disks and concluded
that pefloxacin was an excellent surrogate marker (except for isolates having the aac(6)-Ib-cr gene
as the only resistance determinant) (Skov et al, 2015). Since 2014, EUCAST recommend this agent for
screening of low-level fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella with disk diffusion (EUCAST, 2014). A
few of the countries using disk diffusion therefore replaced the ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid testing
with pefloxacin during 2014.
Some of the optional antimicrobials azithromycin, colistin and tigecycline are included in the
report, where available, to enable comparison with the data reported from food and animals. Most
countries also reported the combination drug co-trimoxazole (sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim) in
addition to or instead of testing the substances separately, partly because this combination is used for
clinical treatment and partly because no EUCAST interpretive criterion exists for sulfamethoxazole for
Salmonella.
Information on the methods and guidelines used for testing and interpretation in 2014 were provided
by the public health reference laboratories. Twelve MSs plus Norway used disk diffusion methods
(DDs), five MSs used dilution methods (DLs) and another four MSs used a combination of the two,
mostly disk diffusion and gradient strip, depending on the situation and the antimicrobial (Table 3).
Almost all countries data were interpreted applying EUCAST criteria in 2014, where available. For two
countries, no update on the criteria had been provided in the last years. For countries reporting
quantitative measured values, all isolates had been tested at a central laboratory.
As resistance levels differ substantially between Salmonella serovars, results are presented separately
for selected serovars of importance, particularly those found in poultry due to the focus of the 2014

report. The serovars presented in the report are S. Enteritidis, S. Infantis, S. Kentucky, S. Derby,
S. Typhimurium and monophasic S. Typhimurium. Additional serovars among the ten most common in
human cases in 2014 or serovars of particular interest due to recent outbreaks etc. are available in
appendices (S. Bovismorbificans, S. Bredeney, S. Chester, S. Hadar, S. Indiana, S. Mbandaka,
S. Muenchen, S. Newport, S. Paratyphi B var. L+ tartrate+ (var. Java), S. Rissen, S. Senftenberg,
S. Stanley and S. Virchow). The proportion of resistant isolates are only shown when at least 20
isolates of Salmonella spp. or at least 10 isolates of separate serovars were tested in that MS.
In order to better assess the impact from food consumed within each reporting country on the AMR
levels found in human Salmonella isolates, the analysis focused on domestically acquired cases.
However, as several countries had not provided any information on travel (or non-travel) of their
cases, cases with unknown travel status were also included in addition to domestically acquired cases.
The proportions of travel-associated, domestic and unknown cases among the tested Salmonella
isolates are presented in Table SALMTRAVHUM.
Multidrug resistance (MDR) of human Salmonella spp. to nine antimicrobial classes was analysed. For
the 2014 report, ECDC and EFSA agreed to include the same antimicrobial classes in the MDR analysis
for better comparison between the two sectors. For the human data analysis, this meant including
also carbapenems which had not been possible in 2013 when too few countries reported on this class.
Multidrug resistance of an isolate was defined as resistance or non-susceptibility to at least three
different antimicrobial classes (Magiorakos et al., 2012). The antimicrobials included were ampicillin,
cefotaxime/ceftazidime, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin/pefloxacin/nalidixic acid, gentamicin,
meropenem, sulfonamides/sulfamethoxazole, tetracyclines and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (co-
trimoxazole). Resistance to nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin and pefloxacin were addressed together, as
they belong to the same class of antimicrobials: quinolones. Isolates that were resistant or non-
susceptible to any of these antimicrobials were classified as resistant or non-susceptible to the class of
quinolones. The same method was applied to the two third generation cephalosporins cefotaxime and
ceftazidime. Trimethoprim and co-trimoxazole were also addressed together since a few countries had
only tested for susceptibility to the combination. This approach was considered appropriate because
among the eight countries that provided data on both trimethoprim alone and the combination co-
trimoxazole, the proportion of resistant or non-susceptibles corresponded closely between the two.
Co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was also analysed as these two antimicrobials are
considered the most important for treatment of severe salmonellosis (ECDC et al., 2009). Both
microbiological co-resistance (using EUCAST ECOFFs) and clinical co-resistance (using EUCAST
CBPs) were determined.
For the first time, the proportions of human isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and
cefotaxime were also presented in maps to provide an overview of the spatial distribution of
resistance. Data were only shown for countries reporting at least 10 isolates.
2.1.2. Campylobacter data of human origin

Thirteen MSs and Norway provided data for 2014 on human Campylobacter isolates. Eight countries
(Austria, Estonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia) reported isolate-based
AST results as measured values (inhibition zone diameters or MICs (Table 4) which was three
countries more than for 2013. Six countries reported case-based AST results interpreted as susceptible
(S), intermediate (I) or resistant (R) according to the CBPs applied.
The antimicrobials included in the 2014 report followed the panel of antimicrobials from the EU
protocol for harmonised monitoring of AMR in human Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates (ECDC,
2014). The priority panel for Campylobacter includes ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and tetracyclines.
Gentamicin and co-amoxiclav (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) are from the list of optional
antimicrobials where gentamicin is recommended for monitoring of invasive isolates.
Information on the methods and guidelines used for testing and interpretation in 2014 were provided
by the public health reference laboratories. Seven MSs used DDs, three MSs and Norway used DLs
(microbroth dilution or gradient strip) and another three MSs used a combination of the two
depending on the situation and the antimicrobial (Table 4). Almost all countries data were interpreted
applying EUCAST criteria in 2014, where available. Four countries did not provide an update on the
criteria applied. For countries reporting quantitative measured values, all isolates had been tested at a
central laboratory.

Table 3: Antimicrobials reported, methods used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria applied by MSs for human Salmonella AST data in 2014
Chloramphenicol
Trimethoprim-
Ciprofloxacin/
Trimethoprim
Sulfonamides
Nalidixic acid
Tetracyclines
Azithromycin
Quantitative (Q)
Ceftazidime
Meropenem
Cefotaxime
Gentamicin
Tigecycline
Method Interpretive
pefloxacin
Country Ampicillin or
used criteria
Colistin
categorical (SIR)
sulfa
Austria DD Q Interpreted by ECDC. EUCAST ECOFFs 2014 for all except CLSI CBP
2014 for SUL
Belgium DD SIR No update. In 2013, EUCAST CBP 2013 (AMP, CTX, CHL, GEN, SXT),
CLSI CBP 2013 (CIP, NAL, SUL, TET)
Denmark DL Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria. EFSA criteria for AZM MIC
Estonia DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Finland DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
France DD/DL(a) SIR CA-SFM CBP 2013
Greece DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Hungary DD/DL(a) SIR EUCAST CBP 2014 except CLSI CBP 2014 for NAL, SUL and TCY
Ireland DL Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria. EFSA criteria for AZM MIC
Italy DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Latvia DD SIR CLSI and EUCAST CBP
Lithuania DD SIR No update provided. Earlier CLSI
Luxembourg DD/DL(a) Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Malta (b) DL SIR Biomerieux Vitek II system; follows EUCAST CBP 2014
Netherlands DL Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria. EFSA criteria for AZM MIC
Norway DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Portugal DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Romania DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Slovakia (b) DD/DL SIR No update provided. In 2013, EUCAST CBP 2013 except CLSI CBP
2013 for NAL, SUL and TCY
Slovenia DD/DL(a) SIR EUCAST CBP 2014 except CLSI CBP 2014 for SUL and TET.
Spain DD SIR EUCAST CBP 2014 except CLSI CBP 2010 for NAL and TET
United DL(c) SIR No update provided. Earlier HPA methodology based on Frost 1994
Kingdom
MSs: Member States; AST: antimicrobial susceptibility testing; DD: disk diffusion; DL: dilution; Q: quantitative data; SIR: susceptible, intermediate, resistant (categorical data); ECDC: European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; EUCAST: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; ECOFF: epidemiological cut-off; CLSI: Clinical and Laboratory Standards
Institute; CBP: clinical breakpoint; SUL: sulfonamides; AMP: ampicillin; CTX: cefotaxime; CHL: chloramphenicol; GEN: gentamicin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole; CIP: ciprofloxacin; NAL: nalidixic acid;
TET: tetracycline; AZM: azithromycin; TCY: tigecycline; CA-SFM: French Society for Microbiology; HPA: Health Protection Agency (UK).
(a): Gradient strip.
(b): All gentamicin results for Salmonella automatically reported as resistant and therefore excluded.
(c): In agar breakpoint.

Resistance levels differ quite substantially between the two most important Campylobacter species, C.
jejuni and C. coli, and data are therefore presented by species. The proportion of resistant isolates is
only shown when at least 10 isolates were reported from a MS.
In order to better assess the impact from food consumed within each reporting country on the
antimicrobial resistance levels found in human Campylobacter isolates, the analysis focused on
domestically acquired cases. However, as several countries had not provided any information on travel
(or non-travel) of their cases, cases with unknown travel status were included in the analysis. The
proportions of travel-associated, domestic and unknown cases among the tested Campylobacter
isolates are presented in Table CAMPTRAVHUM.
Multidrug resistance of a C. jejuni or C. coli isolate was defined as resistance or non-susceptibility to at
least three different antimicrobial classes (Magiorakos et al., 2012). For the 2014 report, the
antimicrobials in the MDR analysis were harmonised between EFSA and ECDC and included
ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin and tetracyclines. Co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and
erythromycin was also analysed, as these two antimicrobials are considered the most important for
treatment of severe campylobacteriosis (ECDC, EFSA, EMEA and SCENIHR 2009). Both
microbiological co-resistance (using EUCAST ECOFFs) and clinical co-resistance (using EUCAST
CBPs) were determined.
For the first time, the proportion of human isolates resistant to erythromycin and ciprofloxacin were
also presented in maps to provide an overview of the spatial distribution of resistance. Data were only
shown for countries reporting at least 10 isolates.
Table 4: Antimicrobials reported, method used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria
applied by MSs for human Campylobacter AST data in 2014
Co-amoxiclav
Erythromycin
Ciprofloxacin
Tetracyclines
Gentamicin
Type
Method Interpretive
Country of
used criteria
data
Austria DL Q
Interpreted by ECDC. EUCAST ECOFF (CIP, ERY,
GEN MIC, TET), CA-SFM CBP 2014 (AMC, GEN DD)
Estonia DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
France DD SIR In 2013, EUCAST CBP 2013 (CIP, ERY, TET),
CA-SFM CBP 2013 (AMC, GEN)
Italy DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Lithuania DD SIR No information
Luxembourg DD/DL(a) Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Malta DL/DL(a)/DD SIR EUCAST CBP 2014 (CIP, ERY)
Netherlands DD/DL SIR Survey in 12 clinical labs in NL in 2009
(Ned Tijdschr Med Microbiol 2009;17:nr1)
Norway DL(a) Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Portugal DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Romania DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Slovakia DL SIR In 2013, CLSI CBP
Slovenia DD Q Interpreted by ECDC, as for Austria
Spain DL(a) SIR EUCAST CBP 2014 (CIP, ERY, TET), CA-SFM CBP
2014 (AMC, GEN)
MSs: Member States; AST: antimicrobial susceptibility testing; DD: disk diffusion; DL: dilution; Q: quantitative data; SIR:
susceptible, intermediate, resistant (categorical data); ECDC: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; EUCAST:
European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; ECOFF: epidemiological cut-off; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY:
erythromycin; GEN: gentamicin; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; TET: tetracycline; CA-SFM: French Society for
Microbiology; CBP: clinical breakpoint; AMC: amoxicillin/clavulanate; TCY: tigecycline.
(a): Gradient strip.

2.2. Antimicrobial susceptibility data from animals and food in 2014

2.2.1. Data reported under Directive 2003/99/EC and Decision 2013/652/EU
For 2014, 28 MSs and three non-MSs reported data on AMR in tested Salmonella and Campylobacter,
commensal E. coli isolates from various poultry populations and/or related meat derived thereof,
sampled through harmonised national schemes. Data on AMR in tested Salmonella, C. jejuni and
commensal E. coli were obtained and reported by the MSs in accordance with Decision 2013/652/EU.
Micro-broth dilution testing methods were used for susceptibility testing, and quantitative 8 isolate-
based data were reported to EFSA and considered for the purpose of this report. Resistance was
interpreted using EUCAST ECOFF values (see following text box for further information). The
antimicrobials incorporated in this summary analysis were selected based on their public health
relevance and as representatives of different antimicrobial classes. Data on meticillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and on specific monitoring of E. coli ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-
producers were reported on a voluntary basis.
Harmonised representative sampling and monitoring

Representative sampling should be performed according to general provisions of the legislation and to
detailed technical specifications issued by EFSA (EFSA, 2014).
Salmonella
In 2014, representative Salmonella isolates for monitoring AMR were collected by MSs from
populations of laying hens, broilers and fattening turkeys sampled within the framework of the
Salmonella National Control Programmes (NCPs), established in accordance with Article 5(1) of
Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003, as well as from carcases of both broilers and fattening turkeys sample
for testing and verification of compliance, in accordance with point 2.1.5 of Chapter 2 of Annex 1 to
Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005. Not more than one isolate per Salmonella serovar from the same
epidemiological unit (flock of birds) per year should be included in the AMR monitoring. In most MSs,
the isolates tested for antimicrobial susceptibility constituted a representative subsample of the total
Salmonella isolates available at the National Reference Laboratory (NRL) and/or other laboratories
involved, obtained in a way that ensured geographical representativeness and even distribution over
the year. Conversely, in the case of low prevalence, all the Salmonella isolates available should be
tested for susceptibility.
8
Quantitative data derived from dilution methods consisted of the number of isolates having a specific MIC value (measured
in mg/L) relative to the total number of isolates tested, for each antimicrobial agent and specific food/animal category.

Epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs) and clinical breakpoints (CBPs)

A microorganism is defined as clinically resistant when the degree of resistance shown is associated
with a high likelihood of therapeutic failure. The microorganism is categorised as resistant by
applying the appropriate CBP in a defined phenotypic test system, and this breakpoint may alter
with legitimate changes in circumstances (for example alterations in dosing regimen, drug
formulation, patient factors). A microorganism is defined as wild type for a bacterial species when no
acquired or mutational resistance mechanisms are present to the antimicrobial in question. A
microorganism is categorised as wild type for a given bacterial species presenting a lower MIC to the
antimicrobial in question than the appropriate ECOFF in a defined phenotypic test system. This cut-
off value will not be altered by changing circumstances (such as alterations in frequency of
antimicrobial administration). Wild-type microorganisms may or may not respond clinically to
antimicrobial treatment. A microorganism is defined as non-wild type for a given bacterial species by
the presence of an acquired or mutational resistance mechanism to the antimicrobial in question. A
microorganism is categorised as non-wild type for a given bacterial species by applying the
appropriate ECOFF value in a defined phenotypic test system; non-wild-type organisms are
considered to show microbiological resistance (as opposed to clinical resistance). CBPs and
ECOFFs may be the same, although it is often the case that the ECOFF is lower than the CBP.
EUCAST has defined CBPs and ECOFFs.
Clinical breakpoints (clinical resistance)

The clinician, or veterinarian, choosing an antimicrobial agent to treat humans or animals with a
bacterial infection requires information that the antimicrobial selected is effective against the
bacterial pathogen. Such information will be used, together with clinical details such as the site of
infection, ability of the antimicrobial to reach the site of infection, formulations available and dosage
regimes, when determining an appropriate therapeutic course of action. The in vitro susceptibility of
the bacterial pathogen can be determined and CBPs used to ascertain whether the organism is likely
to respond to treatment. CBPs will take into account the distribution of the drug in the tissues of the
body following administration and assume that a clinical response will be obtained if the drug is
given as recommended and there are no other adverse factors which affect the outcome.
Conversely, if the CBP indicates resistance, then it is likely that treatment will be unsuccessful.
Frequency of dosing is one factor that can affect the antimicrobial concentration achieved at the site
of infection. Therefore, different dosing regimens can lead to the development of different CBPs, as
occurs in some countries for certain antimicrobials where different therapeutic regimes are in place.
Although the rationale for the selection of different CBPs may be clear, their use makes the
interpretation of results from different countries in reports of this type problematic, as the results
are not directly comparable between those different countries.
Epidemiological cut-off values (microbiological resistance)

For a given bacterial species, the pattern of the MIC distribution (i.e. the frequency of occurrence of
each given MIC plotted against the MIC value) can enable the separation of the wild-type population
of microorganisms from those populations which show a degree of acquired resistance. The wild-
type susceptible population is assumed to have no acquired or mutational resistance and commonly
shows a normal distribution. When bacteria acquire resistance by a clearly defined and efficacious
mechanism, such as the acquisition of a plasmid bearing a gene which produces an enzyme capable
of destroying the antimicrobial, then the MIC commonly shows two major sub-populations, one a
fully susceptible normal distribution of isolates and the other a fully resistant population which has
acquired the resistance mechanism. Resistance may be achieved by a series of small steps, such as
changes in the permeability of the bacterial cell wall to the antimicrobial or other mechanisms which
confer a degree of resistance. In this case, there may be populations of organisms which occur lying
between the fully susceptible population and more resistant populations. The epidemiological cut-off
(ECOFF) value indicates the MIC or zone diameter above which the pathogen has some detectable
reduction in susceptibility. ECOFFs are derived by testing an adequate number of isolates to ensure
that the wild-type population can be confidently identified for a given antimicrobial. The clinical
breakpoint, which is set to determine the therapeutic effectiveness of the antimicrobial, may fail to
detect emergent resistance. Conversely, the ECOFF detects any deviation in susceptibility from the
wild-type population, although it may not be appropriate for determining the likelihood of success or
failure for clinical treatment.

Campylobacter and indicator E. coli9

MSs collected Campylobacter and indicator E. coli isolates as part of their national monitoring
programme of AMR according to the provisions of the Decision 2013/652/EU, based on random
sampling of carcases of healthy slaughter broilers/fattening turkeys at the slaughterhouse. A two-
stage stratified sampling design, with slaughterhouses as primary sampling units and carcases as
secondary units, with proportional allocation of the number of samples to the annual throughput of
the slaughterhouse, was applied in the reporting countries. Only one representative caecal sample
(single or pooled) per epidemiological unit (batch of carcases deriving from the same flock), was
gathered to account for clustering. Isolates were recovered from caecal contents samples (single or
pooled), in accordance with EFSAs recommendations (EFSA, 2013). The sample collection was
approximately evenly distributed over the year 2014.
MRSA
Isolates may have been collected by different monitoring approaches, either by active monitoring of
animals and foods or, in some cases, by passive monitoring based on diagnostic submission of
samples from clinical cases of disease in animals, or from foods sampled as part of investigatory work.
Harmonised antimicrobial susceptibility testing
Routine monitoring antimicrobial susceptibility

MSs tested antimicrobials and interpreted the results using the epidemiological cut-off values and
concentration ranges shown in Table 5 and Table 6 to determine the susceptibility of Salmonella spp.,
C. coli, C. jejuni, indicator commensal E. coli. All E. coli isolates, randomly selected isolates of
Salmonella spp. and E. coli that, after testing with the first panel of antimicrobials in accordance with
Table 6, are found to be resistant to cefotaxime, ceftazidime or meropenem, were further tested with
a second panel of antimicrobial substances as shown in Table 7. This panel notably includes cefoxitin,
cefepime and clavulanate in combination with cefotaxime and ceftazidime for the detection of
presumptive ESBL- and AmpC-producer, as well as imipenem, meropenem and ertapenem to
phenotypically verify presumptive carbapenemase producers.
Specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli and specific monitoring of

carbapenemase-producing microorganims
Both specific monitoring programms were voluntary. For the specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-
/carbapenemase-producing E. coli, the method started with a non-selective pre-enrichment step,
followed by inoculation on McConkey agar containing a third-generation cephalosporin in a selective
concentration, in accordance with the most recent version of the detailed protocol for standardisation
of the EURL-AR.10 Using this protocol, also carbapenemase-producing isolates could be recovered. For
the specific monitoring of carbapenemase-producing microorganisms, isolation required the use of
non-selective pre-enrichment and subsequent selective plating on carbapenem-containing media, in
accordance with the most recent version of the detailed protocol of the EURL-AR.
The microbial species was identified using an appropriate method. If available, one presumptive ESBL-
/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli isolate obtained from each positive caecal sample and meat
sample was tested for resistance to the first panel of antimicrobials (Table 5) and then submitted for
extended susceptibility testing if they are resistant to cefotaxime, ceftazidime or meropenem, based
on the interpretative criteria (epidemiological cut-off values).
All presumptive ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli isolates, identified through selective
plating were further tested with the second panel of antimicrobials (Table 7) to phenotypically verify
presumptive ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producers.
9
The same sampling design was used to collect indicator E. coli isolates, whether dedicated to the routine monitoring of AMR or
the specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli.
10
Available online: www.crl-ar.eu

panel)
Antimicrobial Salmonella E. coli Concentration range, mg/L

EUCAST ECOFF(a) EUCAST ECOFF(a) (no of wells)
Ampicillin >8 >8 164 (7)
Cefotaxime > 0.5 > 0.25 0.254 (5)
Ceftazidime >2 > 0.5 0.58 (5)
Meropenem > 0.125 > 0.125 0.0316 (10)
Nalidixic acid > 16 > 16 4128 (6)
Ciprofloxacin > 0.064 > 0.064 0.0158 (10)
Tetracycline >8 >8 264 (6)
Colistin >2 >2 116 (5)
Gentamicin >2 >2 0.532 (7)
Trimethoprim >2 >2 0.2532 (8)
Sulfamethoxazole NA(b) > 64 81,024 (8)
Chloramphenicol > 16 > 16 8128 (5)
Azithromycin NA(c) NA(c) 264 (6)
Tigecycline >1 >1 0.258 (6)
AMR: antimicrobial resistance; EUCAST: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; ECOFFs: epidemiological
cut-off values; NA: not available.
(a): EUCAST epidemiological cut-off values.
(b): > 256 mg/L was used.
(c): > 16 mg/L was used.
concentration ranges tested in C. jejuni and C. coli
Antimicrobial C. jejuni C. coli Concentration range, mg/L

EUCAST ECOFF(a) EUCAST ECOFF(a) (no of wells)
Erythromycin >4 >8 1128 (8)
Ciprofloxacin > 0.5 > 0.5 0.1216 (8)
Tetracycline >1 >2 0.564 (8)
Gentamicin >2 >2 0.1216 (8)
Nalidixic acid > 16 > 16 164 (7)
Streptomycin(b) >4 >4 0.2516 (7)
AMR: antimicrobial resistance; EUCAST: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; ECOFFs: epidemiological
cut-off values; NA: not available.
(b): On a voluntary basis.
Table 7: Panel of antimicrobial substances, EUCAST ECOFFs and concentration ranges used for
cefotaxime, ceftazidime or meropenem (second panel)
Antimicrobial Salmonella E. coli Concentration range,

EUCAST ECOFF(a) EUCAST ECOFF(a) mg/L (no of wells)
Cefoxitin >8 >8 0.564 (8)
Cefepime NA(b) > 0.125 0.0632 (10)
Cefotaxime + clavulanic acid NA NA 0.0664 (11)
Ceftazidime + clavulanic acid NA NA 0.125128 (11)
Meropenem > 0.125 > 0.125 0.0316 (10)
Temocillin NA(c) NA(c) 0.564 (8)
Imipenem >1 > 0.5 0.1216 (8)
Ertapenem > 0.06 > 0.06 0.0152 (8)
Cefotaxime > 0.5 > 0.25 0.2564 (9)
Ceftazidime >2 > 0.5 0.25128 (10)
EUCAST: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off values; NA: not
available.
(b): For cefepime the cut-off value used in the analysis for Salmonella was > 0.125 mg/L.
(c): For temocillin the cut-off value used in the analysis was > 32 mg/L.

2.2.2. Data validation
Validation against business rules

The reported data were first checked for usability against a series of business rules which were
automatically applied in the EFSA data collection system once a file was transmitted. This automatic
data validation process refers to the first validation of incoming data. Quality checks are related to a
specific business only. The positive result of the automatic validation process places the file in a valid
state and makes it available for further steps of validation performed by EFSA.
Scientific data validation

The scientific validation of the data collected by the MSs/non-MSs and submitted to EFSA consisted on
the revision of data and comparison between data reported for the same antimicrobials when tested
by different panels. Special attention was given to new antimicrobials included for the first time in the
panels (i.e carbapenems, azithromycin, tigecycline, colistin, cefepime) and to possible discrepancies
between results for antimicrobials present in both panels (i.e. cefotaxime, ceftazidime, meropenem).
If carbapenem resistance was reported and/or there was a discrepancy between MIC values reported
for the antimicrobials present in both panels (impacting the categorisation of the isolate as resistant or
susceptible), the MSs/non-MSs were requested by EFSA to re-test species identification and
susceptibility values, performing the tests with both panels in parallel for the same isolate.
The EURL-AR had reported technical issues when testing azithromycin (some MSs had reported
problems in the EURL workshop held in April 2015) and tigecycline (the company producing the plates
reported problems with some batches of medium/material sold). Countries with outstanding
prevalence for these antimicrobials were contacted by the EURL-AR/EFSA so that they can report
whether they faced related problems but they did not report any. Regarding susceptibility testing to
colistin, technical issues were also reported; the EURL-AR, EFSA and concerned MSs closely liaised
together to address them.
2.2.3. Analyses of antimicrobial resistance data

Data are reported in separate sections dedicated to each microorganism. Clinical investigation data
were not accounted for in this report.
Overview tables of the resistance data reported

Data generated from the antimicrobial susceptibility testing and reported as quantitative at the isolate
level by MSs have been described in the overview tables published on the EFSA website.
Minimum inhibitory concentration distributions

For each combination of microorganism, antimicrobial and food category/animal population were
tested, MIC distributions were tabulated in frequency tables, giving the number of isolates tested that
have a given MIC at each test dilution (mg/L) of the antimicrobial. Isolate-based dilution results
allowed MIC distributions reported:
for Salmonella for ampicillin, azithromycin, cefepime, cefotaxime, cefotaxime and clavulanic
acid, ceftazidime, ceftazidime and clavulanic acid, cefoxitin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin,
colistin, ertapenem, gentamicin, imipenem, meropenem, nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole,
temocillin, tetracycline, tigecycline and trimethoprim.
for Campylobacter for, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, streptomycin
and tetracycline.
for indicator E. coli for ampicillin, azithromycin, cefepime, cefotaxime, cefotaxime and
clavulanic acid, ceftazidime, ceftazidime and clavulanic acid, cefoxitin, chloramphenicol,
ciprofloxacin, colistin, ertapenem, gentamicin, imipenem, meropenem, nalidixic acid,
sulfamethoxazole, temocillin, tetracycline, tigecycline and trimethoprim.
for MRSA for cefoxitin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, erythromycin, fusidic acid,
gentamicin, kanamycin, linezolid, mupirocin, penicillin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, rifampicin,
streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, tiamulin, trimethoprim and vancomycin

Epidemiological cut-off values and the occurrence of resistance

ECOFFs, as listed in Decision 2013/652/EC, have been used in this report to interpret the isolate-
based reported MIC data and determine non-wild-type organisms also termed microbiologically
resistant organisms (i.e. displaying a decreased susceptibility), and to ensure that results from
different MSs are comparable. Hereafter in this report, microbiologically antimicrobial-resistant
organisms are referred to as resistant for brevity. This report also incorporates re-evaluation of the
historical data accounting for the revised EU legislation, which included the revised ECOFFs.
The occurrence of resistance11 to a number of antimicrobials was determined for Salmonella,
Campylobacter, indicator E. coli isolates from broilers and laying hens of Gallus gallus, fattening
turkeys, and meat from broilers and fattening turkeys, and are tabulated at the production-type level
in this report. Data are included only if quantitative MIC data are provided by more than four MSs for
the bacteriumanimal population/food category combination. An exception to this rule may have been
made on Salmonella serovars of public health importance (see below), MRSA and ESBLs-/AmpC-
/carbapenemase-producers. Data reported from fewer than 10 tested isolates per combination and
per MS are not included, with the exception of the analysis in certain Salmonella serovars of
importance. The occurrence of resistance (i.e. resistance levels) in reporting MS groups was calculated
as totals (the total number of resistant isolates out of the total number of tested isolates across
reporting MSs) and not the weighted means.
Resistance in Salmonella serovars of public health importance

In this report, AMR in tested Salmonella isolates were aggregated to give a value for Salmonella spp.
for each country and food/animal category. In addition, the most prevalent Salmonella serovars were
also reported separately for particular food/animal category. Additional tables have been included in
this report to describe the occurrence of AMR among selected Salmonella serovars of public health
importance or of high prevalence in animals (monophasic S. Typhimurium, S. Infantis, S. Derby and
S. Kentucky). In order to present a complete overview of the animal populations and food categories
in which specific Salmonella serovars of public health importance have been recovered, data derived
from fewer than four reporting countries have been included.
Data description
Throughout the report, level or occurrence of AMR means the percentage of resistant isolates as a
proportion of the isolates tested of that microorganism. MSs reporting group means the MSs that
provided data and were included in the relevant table of antimicrobial resistance for that
bacteriumfood or animal categoryantimicrobial combination. Terms used to describe the levels
or occurrence of antimicrobial resistance are rare: < 0.1%, very low: 0.1% to 1.0%, low: > 1%
to 10.0%, moderate: > 10.0% to 20.0%, high: > 20.0% to 50.0%, very high: > 50.0% to
70.0%, extremely high: > 70.0%. Although these terms are applied to all antimicrobials, the
significance of a given level of resistance depends on the particular antimicrobial and its
importance in human and veterinary medicine.
Temporal trends in resistance

Where the minimum criteria12 for data inclusion in this report were met, temporal trend graphs were
generated showing the resistance to different antimicrobials from 2008 to 2014, by plotting the level
of resistance for each year of sampling. Graphs were created for those countries for which resistance
data were available for four or more years in the 20082014 period for at least one of the two
antimicrobials. MS-specific resistance levels trend graphs use a unique scale and countries are shown
in alphabetical order. For ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, ampicillin and cefotaxime ( Salmonella),
ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and erythromycin (Campylobacter), ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid,
cefotaxime, ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracycline (indicator E. coli), resistance trends
11
Giving the percentage of isolates microbiologically resistant out of those tested.
12
More than 10 isolates tested by a MS and more than four MSs reporting results for that antimicrobial, microorganism, food or
animal category.

over time were visually explored by trellis graphs, using the lattice package in the R software (R
version 2.14.2 (29/2/2012)).
In order to assess the statistical significance of temporal trends, the proportions of resistance were
modelled against time in a logistic regression. This analysis was carried out using the PROC LOGISTIC
of SAS 9.2 for each country where there were 5 years or more of available data to use in the model.
The PROC LOGISTIC function uses a logit transform to model the proportion of prevalence against
year, and provides estimates for both intercepts and slope. Models where the likelihood ratio test
suggested it to be meaningful and resulting in a p-value associated with slope of < 0.05 were
considered to be significant.
Spatial analysis of resistance through maps

MS-specific AMR levels for selected bacteriumfood category/animal population combinations were
plotted in maps for 2014, using ArcGIS 9.3. In the maps, resistance levels are presented with colours
reflecting the continuous scale of resistance to the antimicrobial of interest among reporting MSs;
thus, there might be some apparent discrepancies between the colours and resistance levels between
maps. Percentages shown in this map refer to countries that reported quantitative MIC data for more
than 10 isolates in 2014. The countries labelled in Salmonella maps as < 10 isolates therefore include
MIC data for fewer than 10 isolates.
2.2.4. Analysis of multidrug resistance and co-resistance data

As a consequence of the availability of AMR data at the isolate level in the MSs, the analysis of MDR
and co-resistance data becomes an important exercise in the light of the public health relevance of
the emergence of multiresistant bacteria. The intention is to focus mainly on multi-/co-resistance
patterns involving critically important antimicrobials according to the bacterial species, such as
cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones and macrolides, and to summarise important information in the EU
Summary Report. The occurrence of the isolates of a serotype/resistance pattern of interest is studied
at the MS level and at the reporting MS group/EU level, as the overall picture for all MSs might show a
more definite pattern of emergence and spread. In addition, the analysis of data may reveal the
existence of new or emerging patterns of MDR, particularly in Salmonella serotypes.
Definitions
For the purpose of this analysis, a multiresistant isolate is one defined as resistant to at least three
different antimicrobial substances, belonging to any three antimicrobial families listed in the
harmonised set of antimicrobials included in the Decision 2013/652/EU. Table 5: and Table 6: list
those recommended antimicrobials. Resistance to nalidixic acid and resistance to ciprofloxacin, as well
as the resistance to cefotaxime and to ceftazidime are respectively addressed together.
In contrast, a fully susceptible isolate is one defined as non-resistant to all of the antimicrobial
substances included in the harmonised set of substances for Salmonella, Campylobacter and indicator
E. coli.
The term co-resistance has been defined as two or more resistance genes which are genetically
linked, i.e. located adjacent or close to each other on a mobile genetic element (Chapman, 2003). For
brevity, the term is used slightly more loosely in this report and indicates two or more phenotypic
resistances to different classes of antimicrobials, exhibited by the same bacterial isolate.
MDR patterns
The frequency and percentage of isolates exhibiting various MDR patterns considering the
antimicrobials tested were determined for Salmonella (Salmonella spp., S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium
and monophasic S. Typhimurium), Campylobacter species and indicator E. coli for each country and
each animal population/food category. Isolates for which no susceptibility data were provided for
some of the antimicrobial substances were disregarded. Data analysis was presented for a particular
country only when the number of tested isolates was at least 10, except for allSalmonella serovars.

Summary indicators and diversity of MDR

The objective is first to give an overview of the situation on MDR through summary indicators: (1) the
proportion of fully susceptible isolates; (2) the proportion of multiresistant isolates. To illustrate the
relative proportions of multiresistant isolates and the diversity of the resistance to multiple
antimicrobials, graphical illustration was chosen. The percentage of isolates susceptible and resistant
to one, two, three, etc., antimicrobials are shown using a composite bar graph displaying stacked
bars, but only for certain combinations of bacteriumanimal population or food categoryMSs of
particular interest.
The co-resistance patterns of interest

In Salmonella and E. coli isolates, co-resistance to cefotaxime (CTX) and ciprofloxacin (CIP) was
estimated, as these two antimicrobials are of particular interest in human medicine. Co-resistance was
addressed using both ECOFFs (CTX > 0.25 mg/L and CIP > 0.064 mg/L) and CBPs (CTX > 2 mg/L
and CIP > 1 mg/L) for E. coli. In C. jejuni and C. coli isolates, co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and
erythromycin (ERY) was estimated, as these two antimicrobials are of particular interest in human
medicine in the treatment of severe campylobacteriosis. The interpretive ECOFFs used to address co-
resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin were, for C. jejuni, CIP > 0.5 mg/L and ERY >4 mg/L
and, for C. coli, CIP > 0.5 mg/L and ERY >8 mg/L. These values may be considered as very similar to
CBPs.
2.2.5. Identification of presumptive phenotypes of ESBL-, AmpC- and/or

carbapenemase-producers
The categorisation of isolates resistant to third-generation cephalosporins and/or carbapenems in
presumptive ESBL-,AmpC- or carbapenemase-producers (referred in this report as
ESBL/AmpC/carbapenemase phenotype) was carried out based on the EUCAST guidelines for
detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical and/or epidemiological
importance (EUCAST, 2013). In these expert guidelines, and based on other EUCAST and CLSI
guidelines to detect ESBL/AmpC producers, a screening breakpoint of > 1 mg/L is recommended for
cefotaxime and ceftazidime. This screening breakpoint is higher than the ECOFFs applied for
antimicrobial susceptibility of both antimicrobials for E. coli, and to cefotaxime for Salmonella. For this
report, a first condition for classifying isolates as putative ESBL/AmpC producers related to their MIC
for either cefotaxime or ceftazidime, was to apply this screening breakpoint of MICs greater 1 mg/L.
Only isolates which presented MIC values accomplishing with this requisite (as expected for most of
the ESBL/AmpC producers) were further considered.
The confirmation of the ESBL phenotype was performed using synergy test for cefotaxime and
ceftazidime, in combination with clavulanic acid. An 8-fold reduction in the MIC for the cephalosporin
combined with clavulanic acid compared with that obtained for the cephalosporin alone was
interpreted as a positive synergy test. In all other cases, the synergy test was considered negative.
For the present report, isolates with MICs > 1 mg/L for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime and a synergy
test positive for any of these antimicrobials were classified as ESBL-phenotype.
Regarding the AmpC phenotype, the combination MIC > 8 mg/L (ECOFF) for cefoxitin together with
MICs > 1 mg/L for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime was used as phenotypic criteria to investigate the
presence of AmpC production in E. coli. It should be also underlined that there are a few AmpC
enzymes that do not confer resistance to cefoxitin (i.e. ACC-1), and that there are other mechanisms
(porin loss, presence of carbapenemases, a few ESBLs like cefotaximase (CTX-M)-5) that could
generate similar MIC values for the different antimicrobials (EFSA, 2012a; EUCAST, 2013). Phenotypic
AmpC confirmation tests (i.e. cloxacillin synergy) were not required for the present monitoring. For
the present report, isolates with MICs > 1 mg/L for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime and cefoxitin
MIC > 8 mg/L, together with negative synergy test for both cefotaxime and ceftazidime/clavulanic
acid, were considered as putative AmpC producers and classified in the AmpC phenotype category. No
distinction between acquired AmpC and natural AmpC was done.
In some isolates, several mechanisms can be present at the same time, making it very difficult to
differentiate the phenotypes. Also the high-level expression of AmpC -lactamases can mask the
presence of ESBLs. AmpC can also be present in isolates with positive ESBL tests (clavulanic acid

synergy). In this case, the cefepime/clavulanic acid synergy test should be used to overturn/confirm
the presence of ESBLs in these isolates (EUCAST, 2013), but unfortunately, the combination
cefepime/clavulanic acid was not included among the substances tested for the monitoring. The
inclusion of resistance to cefepime with a MIC value 4 mg/L, as an additional criteria proposed
elsewhere (EFSA, 2012), could be useful to ascertain the presence of an ESBLproducer.
For the present report, isolates with MICs > 1 mg/L for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime, positive
synergy tests for any of these antimicrobials/clavulanic acid and cefoxitin MIC > 8 mg/L, were
considered as putative ESBL- and AmpC-producers and were classified under the ESBL/AmpC-
phenotype category.
For the classification of isolates into the putative carbapenem producers (CPs), a meropenem
screening cut-off of > 0.12 mg/L (which coincides with the harmonised ECOFF) was chosen. It is
known that other mechanisms (i.e. hyperproduction or combination of ESBLs and/or AmpC and porin
loss) can also affect to the MIC values generated for the different carbapenems, especially for
ertapenem. The confirmation of the carbapemase production recommended by the EUCAST guidelines
cannot be inferred from the carbapenem susceptibility testing data reported, but needs further
phenotypic or molecular testing. Those MS which reported data suggesting the presence of putative
CPs were recommended to validate the results by performing further confirmatory testing, and the
EURL-AR offered to apply whole genome sequencing of the isolates. For the present report, isolates
with MIC > 0.12 mg/L for meropenem would be considered as putative CP and were classified under
the CP-phenotype. Isolates with a MIC > 0.12 for ertapenem and/or MIC > 1 mg/L for imipenem
(EUCAST screening cut-offs, one dilution step higher than the currently defined ECOFFs) but no
resistance to meropenem (MIC < 12 mg/L) were classified under the category other phenotype.
Finally, isolates with MICs 1 mg/L for cefotaxime and ceftazidime would be considered as not ESBL-
and/or AmpC producers. This implied that some isolates considered microbiologically resistant (MICs
over the ECOFFS) would not be further classified, as probably other mechanisms or technical issues in
the MIC testing (i.e. MIC value close to the ECOFF) would be responsible for the MIC values obtained.
For the present report, cefotaxime- and ceftazidime-resistant isolates with MICs 1 mg/L for both
antimicrobials were considered as putative non ESBL/AmpC-producers and were classified under the
category other phenotype.
We are aware that without a further molecular characterisation of the isolates, it will not be possible
to know exactly which resistance mechanisms are present. For epidemiological purposes and based on
the EUCAST guidelines, the classification of putative producers for the different mechanism
conferring resistance to third-generation cephalosporins and/or carbapenems was considered.
2.2.6. Data on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

In 2014, Belgium reported data on susceptibility testing of MRSA isolates Gallus gallus (fowl) breeding
flocks for broiler production line and laying hens, and Switzerland reported data from meat
from broilers and fattening pigs. Details of the antimicrobials selected by Belgium and Switzerland are
provided in Section 3.5. For further information on reported MIC distributions and the number of
resistant isolates, refer to the submitted and validated MS data published on the EFSA website.
Data relating to MRSA prevalence were reported by eight MSs and three non-MSs (Iceland, Norway
and Switzerland). The methods for collecting and testing samples for MRSA are not harmonised
between MSs and, as a result, MSs may use differing procedures. Owing to the variety of methods
employed by MSs, these are explained in detail within Section 3.5 to enable readers to better follow
the procedures carried out by individual countries.
There is an important difference between the methods used to isolate Salmonella, Campylobacter and
indicator E. coli, and the method used to isolate MRSA. For the former group of organisms, there is no
selective medium used to isolate organisms possessing a particular resistance from primary samples,
whereas, for MRSA, antimicrobials are used to selectively isolate only those Staphylococcus aureus
isolates which are resistant to meticillin. Some MSs may have sampled particular production types of
animals (for example, laying hens in Gallus gallus or dairy cows in cattle), and this introduces another
source of possible variation which may account for observed differences between MSs.

3. Assessment
3.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella
Human infections with Salmonella

The majority of Salmonella infections result in mild, self-limiting, gastrointestinal illness and usually do
not require antimicrobial treatment. In some patients, the infection may be more serious as the
bacteria may spread from the intestines to the blood stream and then to other body sites, which can
be life-threatening. Acute Salmonella infections may sometimes also result in long-term sequelae
affecting the joints (reactive arthritis). In cases of severe enteric disease or invasive infection,
effective antimicrobials are essential for treatment. Fluoroquinolones are widely recommended for
treating adults and third-generation cephalosporins are recommended for treating children. Infection
with Salmonella strains resistant to these antimicrobials may be associated with treatment failure,
which in turn can lead to poor outcomes for patients. Therefore, recommended treatment should take
account of up-to-date information on local patterns of resistance.
For 2014, 21 MSs and Norway provided data on AMR in human Salmonella isolates. Twelve countries
(Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal and Romania) reported isolate-based AST results as measured values (inhibition zone
diameters or MICs) which was five countries more than for 2013. Ten countries reported case-based
AST results interpreted as susceptible (S), intermediate (I) or resistant (R) according to the CBPs
applied (Table SALMOVERVIEW). Twenty-seven MSs and two non-MSs (Iceland and Norway) reported
quantitative MIC data on the AMR of Salmonella isolates recovered from animals and food in 2014
(Table SALMOVERVIEW).
3.1.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates from humans

When referring to Salmonella spp., this includes results for all Salmonella serovars from human cases
with AST results reported. The resistance levels for Salmonella spp. are greatly influenced by the
serovars included, with some serovars exhibiting greater resistance to certain antimicrobials or
expressing multidrug resistance to a higher degree than other serovars. Results are therefore
presented separately for selected serovars of importance, particularly those commonly prevalent in
poultry, given the focus of the 2014 report. The serovars presented in this report are S. Enteritidis, S.
Infantis, S. Kentucky, S. Derby, S. Typhimurium and monophasic S. Typhimurium. Additional serovars
among the ten most common in human cases in 2014 or serovars of particular interest due to recent
outbreaks are available in appendices (S. Bovismorbificans, S. Bredeney, S. Chester, S. Hadar,
S. Indiana, S. Mbandaka, S. Muenchen, S. Newport, S. Paratyphi B var. L+ tartrate+ (var. Java),
S. Rissen, S. Senftenberg, S. Stanley and S. Virchow).
In total, 14,412 Salmonella isolates of 247 different serovars and serogroups were tested for
resistance to one or more antimicrobials and reported by 21 MSs and Norway. This represents 16.0%
of all 89,873 confirmed human salmonellosis cases reported in the EU/EEA in 2014. The number of
antimicrobials tested per isolate varied by country, from two countries testing only three antimicrobials
to thirteen countries testing all ten antimicrobials in the priority panel, but with three of these
countries testing the combination drug trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole) instead of the
substances separately. Since the implementation of the agreed panel in 2014 (ECDC, 2014), the
number of countries reporting ceftazidime and meropemen has increased from only a few in 2013 to
the majority of countries in 2014. Three to four countries also tested the optional antimicrobials
azithromycin, colistin and/or tigecycline. Colistin could only be tested by the few laboratories using
dilution methods since its chemical properties render it impossible to be tested in agar plates.
To better assess the impact of food consumed within each reporting country on the AMR levels found
in human Salmonella isolates, the analysis focused on domestically acquired cases.

Methods and interpretive criteria used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of

Salmonella isolates from humans
The method of testing for antimicrobial susceptibility and the selection of the isolates to be tested
varied between countries. The methods and interpretive criteria used for antimicrobial susceptibility
testing of Salmonella are presented in Table 3, Material and methods chapter.
Quantitative data were interpreted by ECDC based on the EUCAST ECOFF values, where available, in
the same way as for the animal and food data. Where ECOFFs do not exist, EUCAST or Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) CBPs were applied. For the qualitative SIR 13 data, intermediate
and resistant results were combined into a non-susceptible category.
For 11 antimicrobials, for which results were reported both as quantitative and interpreted data, the
commonly used interpretive criteria were aligned (Figure 7). For this purpose, susceptible isolates
were aligned with wild-type isolates based on ECOFFS and non-susceptible isolates (intermediate and
resistant) were aligned with non-wild-type isolates. When analysed in this way, there is generally close
concordance ( 1 dilution) across categories, also for ciprofloxacin after the CBPs for Salmonella was
lowered in 2014. A notable exception is the EUCAST CBPs for meropenem, which is substantially
higher (+ 4 dilutions) than the ECOFF.
Figure 7: Comparison of CBPs for non-susceptibility (intermediate and resistant categories

combined) and ECOFFs used to interpret MIC data reported for Salmonella spp. from
humans, animals or food
13
SIR stands for susceptible, intermediate, resistant.

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. in humans

Interpretation of monitoring results must take into account the wide variation in the sampling and
testing strategies for Salmonella between MSs. While the number of reported isolates may in part be
related to true differences in the incidence of salmonellosis, it is also likely to be greatly influenced by
practices in the country related to the capture of isolates and/or data from primary clinical
laboratories. In France, for example, AST is performed on all isolates of specific serovars of interest,
whereas, for the most common serovars, a representative sample is tested. In Slovakia, non-invasive
isolates are tested against only a few antimicrobials, whereas invasive isolates are tested against a
larger panel.
The overall resistance levels for Salmonella spp. are also greatly influenced by the serovars included,
with some serovars being more resistant to certain antimicrobials or expressing multidrug resistance
to a higher degree than other serovars. The serovar distribution within the Salmonella spp. varies by
country depending on their frequency among human cases and/or specific sampling strategies for
further typing and AST at the national public health reference laboratories.
Resistance levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from humans

The highest proportions of resistance in human Salmonella spp. isolates in 2014 were reported for
tetracyclines (30.3%), sulfonamides/sulfamethoxazole (28.6%) and ampicillin (28.2%) (Table 8).
These proportions were significantly lower than in 2013 (34.5%, 35.7% and 36.1%, respectively)
which could be an effect of the countries that reported data for each year and the number of isolates
tested by each country (e.g. Germany did not report in 2014 but accounted for a large proportion of
isolates in 2013). In the case of ampicillin, 12 countries reported lower levels in 2014 compared to
2013, whereas six reported a higher proportion.
Resistance to the two clinically most important antimicrobial classes was reported in 8.8% of isolates
for ciprofloxacin and in 1.1% and 1.2% for cefotaxime and ceftazidime, respectively. Ciprofloxacin
resistance more than doubled compared to 2013 (when it was 3.8%) which most likely reflects the
lowering of the CBP for Salmonella and ciprofloxacin in 2014 and the introduction of pefloxacin for
screening of low-level fluoroquinolones with disk diffusion. The relatively high resistance to cefotaxime
and ceftazidime in Italy (both at 10.8%) is most likely due to the circulation of a multiresistant clone
of S. Infantis in 2014 (Ida Luzzi, Istituto Superiore di Sanit, personal communication, August 2015).
No isolates were reported resistant to meropenem in 2014 (data not shown in Table 8). Resistance to
colistin was detected in both countries reporting this antimicrobial, in 5.9% and 21.5% of isolates,
respectively.
The resistance data for ciprofloxacin and trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole for Malta are outliers at
50.0% and 80.3%, respectively. These data have been confirmed with the laboratory.

Multidrug resistance in Salmonella spp. isolates from humans

Ten MSs tested at least ten isolates for the nine antimicrobial classes included in the MDR analysis
(meropenem new in the list for 2014). On average, 54.8% of Salmonella spp. isolates were
susceptible to all nine antimicrobial classes, varying from 19.8% in France to 69.5% in Slovenia
(Table COMSALMHUM). Few isolates exhibited microbiological (0.6%) or clinical (0.5%) co-
resistance to both ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime. Of the 21 isolates exhibiting clinical co-resistance, six
were S. Typhimurium, five S. Infantis, four S. Schwarzengrund, three S. Stanley and the remaining
three S. Kentucky, monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- and S. Uganda. The highest proportion
of clinical co-resistance was observed in isolates from Ireland (3.6%), followed by Italy (1.8%) and
Luxembourg (1.4%).
Multidrug resistance was high (26.0%) at the EU level, with the highest levels reported from France
(62.6%). Of note, France only uses extended antibiograms with ceftazidime, cefotaxime and all beta-
lactams for isolates resistant to ampicillin (Simon Le Hello, Institut Pasteur Paris, personal
communication, November 2014). The proportions of isolates susceptible to all and resistant (or non-
susceptible) to up to nine antimicrobial classes are presented by MS in Figure 8. The proportions
differed substantially between countries. Isolates resistant to five antimicrobials were reported from all
ten MSs; six MSs (Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands) reported a few
isolates resistant to seven or eight antimicrobial classes. The serovars of the isolates resistant to
seven or eight antimicrobial classes included S. Typhimurium (seven isolates), monophasic
S. Typhimurium (five), S. Schwarzengrund (four), S. Infantis (three), S. Kentucky (three),
S. Brandenburg (two), S. Agona (two) and S. Corvallis (one). No isolates were reported resistant to all
nine classes.
N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible
to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1res9: resistance to one up to nine antimicrobial classes of
the common set for Salmonella.
Figure 8: Frequency distribution of Salmonella spp. isolates from humans completely susceptible or
resistant to one to eight antimicrobial classes in 2014

Table 8: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. (all non-typhoidal serovars) from humans per country in 2014
Country Ampicillin Azithromycin Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin(b) Colistin

N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res
Austria(a) 1,670 14.6 1,670 1.0 1,670 1.0 1,670 2.9 1,576 19.0
Belgium 871 39.8 871 1.1 871 7.5 871 2.6
Denmark(a) 407 39.8 407 1.7 407 1.0 407 0.5 407 3.9 407 5.7 407 5.9(c)
Estonia(a) 21 38.1 21 0 21 0 21 9.5 21 14.3
Finland(a) 308 20.8 308 2.3 308 5.5 308 1.9
France 1,255 29.1 - - 581 2.6 1254 9.3 1,255 12.7
Greece(a) 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA
Hungary 1,024 25.2 1,024 0.5 1,024 5.9 295 0.3
Ireland(a) 167 36.5 171 1.2 171 4.1 171 2.9 169 13.6 171 14.0
Italy(a) 111 30.6 111 10.8 111 10.8 111 8.1 111 4.5
Latvia 26 23.1 25 8.0
Lithuania 1,122 26.6 992 0.3 592 0.2 591 2.2 892 13.5
Luxembourg(a) 72 16.7 110 0.9 110 1.8 110 4.5 110 7.3
Malta 132 53.0 132 50.0
Netherlands(a) 721 32.2 721 0.6 721 0.8 721 0.3 721 4.7 721 9.2 721 21.5
Portugal(a) 140 55.0 140 0.7 - - 140 12.1 140 0
Romania(a) 216 21.3 216 0 216 0 216 8.3 216 9.7
Slovakia 672 12.1 324 1.5 13 NA 13 30.8 427 1.2
Slovenia 591 11.8 591 0.2 580 0.7 591 3.0 589 8.8
Spain 1,715 46.2 1,714 1.3 - - 1,714 7.8 1,714 1.2
United Kingdom 513 18.1 500 1.0 1 NA 517 4.6 540 5.0
Total (MS 21) 11,763 28.2 1,299 1.0 9,900 1.1 5,203 1.2 10,457 6.0 10,530 8.8 1,128 15.9
Norway(a) 342 28.4 342 0.9 342 0.3 141 10.6 342 3.2

Country Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Sulfamethoxazole(d) Tetracycline Tigecycline Trimethoprim Co-trimoxazole

Austria(a) 1,670 1.8 1,670 19.0 1,670 16.4 1,670 17.3 1670 1.2 1,670 3.5
Belgium 871 2.5 869 15.0 871 33.2 857 18.3
Denmark(a) 407 1.7 407 5.2 407 41.0 407 43.0 407 3.4 407 5.4
Estonia(a) 21 9.5 21 14.3 21 38.1 21 19.0 21 9.5
Finland(a) 308 2.9 308 10.7 308 23.7 308 19.5 308 3.6
France 1,255 8.8 1,256 30.0 1,255 38.5 1,256 40.0 1,254 14.4 532 17.5
Greece(a) 9 NA 9 NA
Hungary 1,024 0.4 295 37.3 1,024 34.4 1,024 3.4 1,012 3.3
Ireland(a) 171 5.3 170 10.6 171 39.8 168 32.7 171 2.3 169 12.4
Italy(a) 111 4.5 111 27.9 111 45.0 111 36.9 - - 111 18.0 111 18.0
Latvia 25 8.0
Lithuania 506 1.4 456 20.0 483 16.4 485 3.7 1058 4.6
Luxembourg(a) 110 1.8 110 37.3 110 37.3 110 4.5 110 4.5
Malta 132 80.3
Netherlands(a) 721 1.5 721 7.4 721 34.1 721 33.8 721 3.1 721 9.4
Portugal(a) 140 2.9 140 10.0 139 54.0 139 5.0
Romania(a) 216 0.9 216 20.4 216 34.7 216 13.4 216 30.6 216 18.5
Slovakia 1 NA 1 NA 448 12.3 302 3.0
Slovenia 591 0.5 585 25.8 591 10.7 591 1.0 591 0.7
Spain 1,709 2.3 1,715 26.8 1,715 46.9 1,713 5.8
United Kingdom 521 2.9 517 16.6 510 21.0 499 21.0 536 7.8 37 10.8
Total (MS 21) 10,352 2.7 8,882 20.1 6,086 28.6 10,767 30.3 2,969 2.0 7,623 7.3 6,835 9.2
Norway(a) 342 3.8 141 12.8 141 53.9 342 3.8
Note: All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem.
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates (either interpreted as non-wild type by ECOFFs or clinically non-susceptible by combining resistant and
intermediate categories); : no data reported; NA: not applicable if fewer than 20 isolates were tested, the percentage of resistance was not calculated; MS: Member State.
(a): Provided measured values. Data interpreted by ECDC.
(b): Ciprofloxacin has in several countries been replaced by pefloxacin for screening of fluoroquinolone resistance with disk diffusion, as recommended by EUCAST.
(c): Preliminary data to be confirmed.
(d): Combined data on the class of sulfonamides and the substance sulfamethoxazole within this group.

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Enteritidis in humans
Resistance levels in S. Enteritidis isolates from humans

As in previous years, S. Enteritidis was the most common Salmonella serovar identified in 2014, with
33,965 cases reported in the EU/EEA. The highest proportion of resistance among human
S. Enteritidis isolates was observed for nalidixic acid (24.5%) with the highest country-specific
proportions observed in Spain (62.0%) and Portugal (47.6%) (21 MSs, Table 9). Ciprofloxacin
resistance was observed in 6.0% of isolates, with Malta and Ireland reporting the highest level of
ciprofloxacin resistance (58.8% and 29.2%, respectively), although the number of isolates tested
were low. It is generally expected that there should be a correlation between the activity of nalidixic
acid and ciprofloxacin against Salmonella. Some countries reported moderate to very high resistance
levels in nalidixic acid, including Spain and Portugal, but reported much lower levels of ciprofloxacin
resistance. Some of these differences could be due to the poor detection of low-level fluoroquinolone
resistance with ciprofloxacin when using disk diffusion, and this is why EUCAST, since 2014,
recommends testing of pefloxacin instead. Resistance to cefotaxime or ceftazidime was generally not
detected or detected at low levels in S. Enteritidis. Only two countries reported data on colistin and
among these, the resistance was very high, 67.5%. The very high resistance could be due to inherent
resistance to colistin being common among certain Salmonella serovars, e.g. S. Dublin and
S. Enteritidis, which share the same somatic antigens (O:1,9,12) (Agers et al, 2012) whereas the
ECOFF is not serovar-specific.
Multidrug resistance in S. Enteritidis isolates from humans

Most (84.7%) of the S. Enteritidis isolates from humans were susceptible to all nine antimicrobial
classes included in the MDR analysis (7 MSs, N=1,554) (Figure 9, Table COMENTERHUM). MDR was
detected in 2.1% of isolates (country average 3.8%) with the highest proportions reported in isolates
from Ireland (12.5%) and Romania (12.0%), although the number of isolates tested in Ireland was
low. No co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was detected in any MS.
Figure 9: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from humans completely

susceptible or resistant to one to nine antimicrobial classes in 2014

Table 9: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Enteritidis from humans per country in 2014

Austria(a) 814 1.5 814 0.2 814 0.2 814 0.2 783 4.6
Belgium 236 6.8 236 1.3 236 1.3 236 0.8
Denmark(a) 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA
Estonia(a) 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA
Finland(a) 49 8.2 49 0 49 2.0 49 2.0
France 130 0.8 17 0 130 0 130 0.8
Hungary 386 1.6 386 0 386 0.5 12 0
Ireland(a) 24 20.8 24 0 24 0 24 0 24 0 24 29.2
Italy(a) 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA
Latvia 16 0 15 0
Lithuania 883 20.2 786 0.4 453 0 450 0.9 699 13.9
Luxembourg(a) 20 0 25 0 25 0 25 4.0 25 8.0
Malta 34 29.4 34 58.8
Netherlands(a) 147 4.8 147 0.7 147 0 147 0 147 0 147 14.3 147 68.0
Portugal(a) 21 4.8 21 0 21 0 21 0
Romania(a) 150 14.7 150 0 150 0 150 10.7 150 8.7
Slovakia 508 4.7 249 1.2 8 NA 3 NA 320 0.9
Slovenia 389 0.8 389 0 384 0.5 389 0 389 2.3
Spain 542 3.7 542 0.4 542 0.7 542 0.2
United Kingdom 159 5.0 158 0 1 NA 159 0.6 162 3.7
Total (MS 21) 4,522 7.0 175 0.6 3,990 0.3 2037 0.2 3539 1.0 3,752 6.0 151 67.5
Norway(a) 74 4.1 74 0 74 0 16 0 74 2.7

Country Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Sulfamethoxazole(c) Tetracycline Tigecycline Trimethoprim Co-trimoxazole

Austria(a) 814 0.1 814 5.2 814 0.2 814 0.7 814 0.1 814 0.4
Belgium 236 0.4 234 18.8 236 1.7 231 0.9
Denmark(a) 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA
Finland(a) 49 0 49 30.6 49 2.0 49 4.1 49 2
France 130 0 130 22.3 130 4.6 130 3.8 130 0 16 0
Greece(a) 2 NA 2 NA
Hungary 386 0 12 0 386 0.8 386 0.3 375 0.3
Ireland(a) 24 0 24 29.2 24 8.3 24 4.2 24 4.2 24 8.3 - -
Italy(a) 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA - - 2 NA 2 NA
Latvia 15 0
Lithuania 374 0.5 337 20.5 361 5.8 359 0.6 840 1.9
Luxembourg(a) 25 0 25 12.0 25 8.0 25 0 25 0
Malta 34 64.7
Netherlands(a) 147 0 147 13.6 147 0.7 147 0.7 147 0.7 147 0 - -
Portugal(a) 21 0 21 47.6 21 0 21 0
Romania(a) 150 0 150 22.0 150 34.7 150 11.3 150 26.0 150 16.7
Slovakia 1 NA 349 3.7 - - 213 1.4
Slovenia 389 0 386 12.7 389 1.0 389 0.3 389 0.3
Spain 542 0.4 542 62.0 542 2.0 542 0.4
United Kingdom 159 0.6 158 21.5 158 2.5 157 2.5 162 1.2 5 NA
Total (MS 21) 3,458 0.2 2,633 24.5 1,895 6.4 3,794 2.5 989 0.3 2,647 1.9 2,858 2.5
Norway(a) 74 0 16 12.5 16 0 74 0
(c): Combined data on the class of sulfonamides and the substance sulfamethoxazole within this group.

Spatial distribution of resistance among S. Enteritidis isolates from human cases

Ciprofloxacin resistance in S. Enteritidis isolates from human cases (Figure 10) did not show a clear
spatial pattern. Malta and Ireland reported the highest levels of resistance, followed by the
Netherlands and Lithuania. As expected, resistance levels to nalidixic acid were generally higher than
those to ciprofloxacin, but they were significantly higher in some countries and the highest in Spain
and Portugal (Figure 11) whereas those countries reported very low proportions or no resistance to
ciprofloxacin. These discrepancies could be due to methodological issues. Cefotaxime resistance levels
were generally low and did not show a spatial pattern, although only few countries reported data for
at least 10 isolates (Figure 12).
Figure 10: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among S. Enteritidis from human cases in
reporting countries in 2014

Figure 11: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among S. Enteritidis from human cases in
Figure 12: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among S. Enteritidis from human cases in

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Infantis in humans
Resistance levels in S. Infantis isolates from humans

S. Infantis was the fourth most common serovar in 2014 with 1,846 cases reported by the EU/EEA
countries. The highest resistance levels were observed for tetracylines (48.3%), nalidixic acid (44.0%)
and sulfonamides (42.0%) (20 MSs, Figure 13) but levels varied markedly between countries. The
proportion of isolates resistant to the two clinically most important antimicrobials was on average
16.4% for ciprofloxacin and 5.4% for cefotaxime, which was markedly higher than for all
Salmonella spp. (8.8% and 1.1%, respectively). Ciprofloxacin resistance levels were particularly high
in Slovenia (81.3%) and Austria (75.0%), and cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Italy (64.7% and 64.7%,
respectively), although the number of isolates tested in Slovenia and Italy was low. In 2014 and
continuing in 2015, Italy had circulation of a multiresistant and ESBL-producing (CTX-M type) clone of
S. Infantis (Ida Luzzi, Istituto Superiore di Sanit, personal communication, August 2015).
Multidrug resistance in S. Infantis isolates from humans

MDR was detected in 61.9% (5 MSs, N=139) of human S. Infantis cases (country average 54.5%)
(Figure 13, Table COMINFANHUM). Microbiological as well as clinical co-resistance to ciprofloxacin
and cefotaxime were reported in 2.2% of isolates with a high proportion reported from Italy (11.8%,
N=17).
Figure 13: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Infantis isolates from humans completely

Table 10: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Infantis from humans per country in 2014

Austria(a) 66 4.5 66 1.5 66 1.5 66 0 64 75.0
Belgium 51 13.7 51 9.8 51 9.8 51 0
Denmark(a) 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0(c)
Finland(a) 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA
France 120 2.5 - - 2 NA 120 3.3 120 0.8
Hungary 190 6.3 190 1.1 190 2.6 100 1
Ireland(a) 6 NA 6 0 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA
Italy(a) 17 70.6 17 64.7 17 64.7 17 17.6 17 11.8
Lithuania 13 7.7 11 0 11 0 11 0 13 0
Luxembourg(a) 1 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA
Malta 10 30.0 10 60
Netherlands(a) 23 13.0 23 0 23 4.3 23 4.3 23 8.7 23 21.7 23 0
Portugal(a) 1 NA 1 NA - - 1 NA 1 NA
Romania(a) 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA
Slovakia 35 22.9 13 7.7 2 NA 23 8.7
Slovenia 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 81.3
Spain 31 12.9 31 6.5 31 9.7 31 0
United Kingdom 16 37.5 16 6.3 18 16.7 18 11.1
Total (MS 20) 631 10.3 46 0 478 5.4 169 8.9 589 4.4 530 16.4 40 0
Norway(a) 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA

Country Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Sulfamethoxazole(d) Tetracycline Tigecycline Trimethoprim Co-trimoxazole

Austria(a) 66 0 66 75.8 66 80.3 66 77.3 66 21.2 66 9.1
Belgium 51 9.8 51 25.5 51 41.2 50 34.0
Denmark(a) 17 0 17 0 17 5.9 17 5.9 17 0 17 5.9
Finland(a) 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA 9 NA
France 120 0 120 14.2 120 15.8 120 15.0 119 4.2 1 NA
Greece(a) - - 1 NA 1 NA
Hungary 190 0 100 84.0 190 71.1 190 1.6 190 1.6
Ireland(a) 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 66.7 6 NA 6 NA
Italy(a) 17 5.9 17 82.4 17 82.4 17 82.4 17 76.5 17 76.5
Lithuania 11 0 9 NA 11 9.1 11 9.1 13 15.4
Malta 10 70.0
Netherlands(a) 23 4.3 23 21.7 23 30.4 23 21.7 23 4.3 23 26.1
Portugal(a) 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA
Romania(a) 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA
Slovakia 21 38.1 21 4.8
Slovenia 16 0 16 75.0 16 75.0 16 0 16 0
Spain 31 6.5 31 22.6 31 19.4 31 9.7
United Kingdom 18 0 18 61.1 16 50.0 16 62.5 18 27.8 2 NA
Total (MS 20) 586 1.7 477 44.0 300 42.0 606 48.3 112 13.4 502 10.2 360 14.4
Norway(a) 2 NA 2 NA
intermediate categories]; : no data reported; NA: not applicable - if fewer than 10 isolates were tested, the percentage of resistance was not calculated; MS: Member State.
(c): Preliminary data to be confirmed.
(d): Combined data on the class of sulfonamides and the substance sulfamethoxazole within this group.

Spatial distribution of resistance among S. Infantis isolates from human cases

Ciprofloxacin resistance in S. Infantis isolates from human cases (Figure 14) was the highest in two
countries in Central Europe, Austria and Slovenia, and in Malta. A similar pattern was observed for
nalidixic acid resistance (Figure 15), now also including Hungary, Italy and the United Kingdom. The
large discrepancy between nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin resistance levels could be due to
methodological issues, see discussion. Extremely high cefotaxime resistance levels were observed in
S. Infantis in Italy whereas other countries reported relatively low resistance levels (Figure 16).
Figure 14: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among S. Infantis from human cases in

Figure 15: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among S. Infantis from human cases in
Figure 16: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among S. Infantis from human cases in

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Kentucky in humans
Resistance levels in S. Kentucky isolates from humans

S. Kentucky was the eighth most common serovar in 2014 with 606 cases reported by the EU/EEA
countries. France accounted for 66% of the S. Kentucky isolates with AST data (all human S. Kentucky
isolates in France are submitted for AST). Very high to extremely high proportions of S. Kentucky
isolates were resistant to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, sulfonamides and
tetracyclines. This is consistent with the dissemination of the ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Kentucky ST198
strain in Europe, and elsewhere, since 2010 (Le Hello et al., 2013a). Cefotaxime and ceftazidime
resistance levels were also higher (7.4% and 2.9%, respectively) than in other serovars.
Multidrug resistance in S. Kentucky isolates from humans

Multidrug resistance was very high (74.6%, N=189) (Table 11, Table COMKENTHUM) in the two MSs
that reported data on at least 10 isolates, 49.7% of the isolates exhibited penta-resistance and three
isolates were resistant to seven or eight antimicrobial classes. One isolates from Austria expressed
microbiological and clinical co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime, and three isolates from
France to ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime (cefotaxime was not tested).
Figure 17: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Kentucky isolates from humans completely
Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Derby in humans

S. Derby was the seventh most common serovar in 2014 with 755 cases reported by the EU/EEA
countries. Resistance to sulfonamides and tetracycline was relatively common in S. Derby (45.5% and
40.8%, respectively) (16 MSs, Table 12). The levels were influenced by the very high resistance levels
reported in France, however, as France accounted for 40% of tested isolates, most likely reflecting the
targeted testing of this serovar.
The proportion of isolates resistant to the two clinically most important antimicrobials was on average
1.7% for ciprofloxacin and 1.0% for cefotaxime. Multi-drug resistance was low (4.3%) in the two MSs
that reported data on at least 10 isolates and no isolates were co-resistant to ciprofloxacin and
cefotaxime (Table COMDERBYHUM).

Table 11: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Kentucky from humans per country in 2014

Austria(a) 19 78.9 19 5.3 19 5.3 19 5.3 19 89.5
Belgium 17 82.4 17 0 17 11.8 17 94.1
Finland(a) 5 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 NA
France 170 70.0 - - 170 2.4 171 7.6 171 82.5
Ireland(a) 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA
Lithuania 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA
Malta 5 NA - - 5 NA
Netherlands(a) 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA
Slovakia 1 NA
Slovenia 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA
Spain 16 68.8 16 12.5 15 13.3 15 80.0
United Kingdom 8 NA 8 NA 8 NA 8 NA
Total (MSs 16) 257 71.2 9 NA 81 7.4 204 2.9 251 8.0 256 84.0 8 NA


Austria(a) 19 63.2 19 89.5 19 89.5 19 89.5 19 5.3 19 5.3
Belgium 17 58.8 17 100 17 94.1 17 11.8
Finland(a) 5 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 NA
France 171 50.9 171 85.4 171 64.3 171 74.9 171 8.8 171 8.2
Ireland(a) 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA
Italy(a) 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA
Lithuania 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA
Malta 5 NA
Netherlands(a) 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NA
Portugal(a) 1 NA 1 NA - - 1 NA 1 NA
Slovakia 1 NA
Spain 14 50.0 16 87.5 16 43.8 15 0
United Kingdom 8 NA 8 NA 8 NA 8 NA 8 NA
Total (MSs 16) 250 53.6 250 86.8 216 68.5 253 75.1 28 3.6 218 9.2 215 10.2
Norway(a) 5 NA 5 NA
All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem

Table 12: Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Derby from humans per country in 2014

Austria(a) 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 10.0 9 NA
Belgium 32 12.5 32 0 32 3.1 32 0
France 71 2.8 4 NA 71 4.2 71 0
Latvia 1 NA 1 NA
Lithuania 10 0 10 0 9 NA 10 0 10 10
Malta 1 NA 1 NA
Netherlands(a) 14 14.3 14 0 14 7.1 14 7.1 14 0 14 0 14 14.3
Slovakia 2 NA 2 NA
Spain 18 5.6 18 0 18 0 18 0
United Kingdom 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA
Total (MSs 16) 177 5.6 19 0 105 1.0 50 2.0 174 3.4 174 1.7 19 10.5


Austria(a) 10 0 10 20.0 10 20.0 10 10.0 10 0 10 0
Belgium 32 0 32 0 32 21.9 30 26.7
France 71 0 71 0 71 60.6 71 63.4 70 4.3 2 NA
Italy(a) 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA
Latvia 1 NA
Lithuania 10 0 9 NA 10 0 9 NA 7 NA
Malta 1 NA
Netherlands(a) 14 0 14 0 14 21.4 14 14.3 14 0 14 21.4
Portugal(a) 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA - - 2 NA
Slovakia 1 NA
Spain 18 0 18 5.6 18 50.0 18 11.1
United Kingdom 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA 4 NA
Total (MSs 16) 174 0 168 1.8 112 45.5 174 40.8 29 0 120 5.8 70 17.1
All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Typhimurium in humans
Resistance levels in S. Typhimurium isolates from humans

As in previous years, S. Typhimurium was the second most common Salmonella serovar identified in
2014, with 14,284 cases reported in the EU/EEA (monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:-
excluded). The highest proportion of resistance in S. Typhimurium was observed for ampicillin
(52.8%), sulfonamides (46.2%) and tetracyclines (43.5%) (21 MSs, Table TYPHIHUMD). The
proportions of resistance to these antimicrobials were high to extremely high in all reporting MSs,
except in Finland and Romania where moderate resistance to both ampicillin and tetracyclines, and
moderate resistance to tetracyclines were observed, respectively. The proportions of isolates resistant
to the two clinically most critical antimicrobials were on average 4.3% for ciprofloxacin and 1.2% for
cefotaxime. The highest proportion of isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin was reported from Slovenia
(32.7%), whereas the highest proportion of cefotaxime resistance was reported from Ireland (8.5%).
Multidrug resistance in S. Typhimurium isolates from humans

In humans, 32.5% (8 MSs, N=710) of the S. Typhimurium isolates were multiresistant (Figure 18).
Microbiological and clinical co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime were reported in 1.3% and
0.8% of isolates with the highest proportions reported from Ireland (8.6% for both types, N=58)
(Table COMTYPHIHUM).
Figure 18: Frequency distribution of Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from humans completely
Antimicrobial resistance in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium in humans
Resistance in monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- isolates from humans

For the purpose of this report, monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- is treated as a separate
serovar, and as such, it is currently the third most common serovar in Europe. In 2014, 5,851 cases
were reported by the EU/EEA countries. Extremely high levels of resistance were observed for
tetracyclines (85.3%), ampicillin (83.8%) and sulfonamides (75.8%) in monophasic S. Typhimurium
1,4,[5],12:i:- (10 MSs, Table MONTYPHIHUMD). The resistance pattern, ASuT14, is a well-known
characteristic of monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- and was observed at similar levels in all
reporting MSs with the exception of Italy which reported lower levels to all three antimicrobials and
Luxembourg which did so for ampicillin. The proportion of isolates resistant to the two clinically most
14
This pattern of MDR (resistance to ampicillin, sulfonamide and tetracycline) typically also includes resistance to streptomycin;
however, as described in the Materials and methods section, data on this antimicrobial are no longer included in this report.

important antimicrobials was 1.1% for ciprofloxacin and 0.8% for cefotaxime, with the highest levels
of ciprofloxacin resistance in Ireland (9.4%) and of cefotaxime resistance in Austria (1.5%) and Spain
(1.3%).
Multidrug resistance in monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- isolates from humans

In humans, 69.4% (7 MSs, N=595) of the monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates were multiresistant
(Figure 19). Microbiological and clinical co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime were only
reported in one isolate from Denmark, resulting in 0.2% co-resistance among the seven reporting MSs
(Table COMMONTYPHIHUM).
Figure 19: Frequency distribution of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- isolates

from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to eight antimicrobial classes in
2014
3.1.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates from animals and food

Based on the legislative requirements, the active AMR resistance in Salmonella isolates from broilers
and laying hens of Gallus gallus, fattening turkeys and from meat derived thereof was mandatory in
2014. Salmonella isolates from Gallus gallus and turkeys were primarily obtained from faecal samples
and/or environmental samples (boot swabs or dust) collected on farms, as part of Salmonella National
Control Programmes (NCPs) carried out according to the EU legislation. Clinical investigations and
follow-up sampling of flocks tested positive for Salmonella were excluded from the analyses.
Salmonella isolates from meat were obtained from randomly collected neck skin samples collected
within the framework of either official sampling or hazard analysis and critical point control (HACCP)
and own-check programmes at slaughterhouses.
Salmonella spp. includes results for all Salmonella serovars reported for different animal populations
or food categories. As the potential for acquiring AMR markedly varies between serovars, the relative
contribution of different serovars may significantly influence the general level of resistance presented
for Salmonella spp. Trends in the dissemination of specific clones or resistance traits should ideally be
considered individually for the different serovars and results are presented for selected serovars of
importance.
Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella in meat from broilers
Resistance levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler meat

In 2014, 11 MSs reported data on more than 10 isolates of Salmonella spp. from broiler meat
according to the provisions of Decision 2013/652/EU (Table 13). The reported levels of resistance to

ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline ranged from low to extremely high
(1.297.9%) in Salmonella spp. from broiler meat in most of the reporting MSs, whereas no resistance
was recorded in Ireland. Resistance to ampicillin was generally low to moderate in most reporting MSs
(4.314.0%), although high levels were also observed in two MSs and three MSs did not register any
resistance. Overall resistance to gentamicin (0.7%) and chloramphenicol (2.2%) remained at low
levels. Resistance was not detected or low levels of resistance to azithromycin, colistin and tigecycline
were reported by most MSs (027.7%). Microbiological resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was
recorded by only two MSs at very low or low levels.
Multidrug resistance in Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler meat

Thirteen MSs reported data on at least 10 isolates, which were addressed in the MDR analysis
(N=597). From 0% to 93.3% of the Salmonella spp. isolates were multiresistant, whereas the
proportion of fully susceptible isolates varied from 2.1% to 100% (Figure 20). Microbiological and
clinical co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was not observed in any MSs
(Table COMPSALMBRMEAT).
Ireland (N=21)
France (N=169)
Lithuania (N=6) sus
Czech Republic (N=50) res1
res2
Germany (N=41)
res3
Belgium (N=81)
res4
Austria (N=24) res5
Poland (N=31) res6
Slovakia (N=57) res7
Spain (N=130) res8
res9
Slovenia (N=15)
Hungary (N=47)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
MS: Member State; N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for
Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1res9: resistance to one
antimicrobial classes/resistance to nine antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.
nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from broiler meat in MSs in 2014
Resistance levels in certain Salmonella serovars from broiler meat

Among the isolates for which serovar information was provided (N=1,082), the most common
serovars detected in broiler meat (Table SERBRMEAT) were S. Infantis (16 MSs, 36.8%), S. Indiana
(five MSs, 10.6%) and S. Enteritidis (11 MSs, 9.8%). Resistance and MDR levels in S. Enteritidis were
generally lower than those recorded in S. Infantis and Salmonella spp. Overall high level of resistance
(31.6%) to colistin was registered in S. Enteritidis, whereas no resistance was recorded in S. Infantis.
In S. Enteritidis isolates from broiler meat (six MSs, N=76), resistance to chloramphenicol,
gentamicin, tetracycline and tigecycline was not detected; overall resistance to ampicillin, cefotaxime,
sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim was observed at low levels, whereas ceftazidime resistance was
not detected. The highest level of resistance was to colistin (31.6%), followed by the resistance to
ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid (22.4% for both of antimicrobials) (Table ENTERBRMEATD). 64.0% of
S. Enteritidis isolates were susceptible to all 11 antimicrobials included in the MDR analysis (33.3
100%) (Table COMENTERBRMEAT).
Overall extremely high resistance to sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid
was observed in S. Infantis isolates from broiler meat (N=147) (Table INFANBRMEATD).
Azithromycin, colistin, cefotaxime and ceftazidime resistance was not detected. It is of note that
55.0% of the S. Infantis isolates originated from Hungary and Slovakia, but levels of resistance are

comparable to most other reporting MSs. In contrast to S. Enteritis, a very high proportion of isolates
(83.1%) were multiresistant (79.5100%) (Table COMINFANBRMEAT).
Out of 69 isolates of S. Indiana tested, only two isolates were found resistant: one only to
ciprofloxacin and one to colistin and tetracycline (Table INDIANABRMEATD).
Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella in meat from turkeys
Resistance levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from turkey meat

In 2014, three MSs reported more than 10 quantitative MIC data in Salmonella spp. isolates from
turkey meat (Table 13). Levels of resistance were generally higher than those observed in broiler
meat. The proportion of multiresistant Salmonella spp. isolates varied from none of the isolates tested
in the Czech Republic and Poland, even if less than 10 isolates were tested, to extremely high levels
(74.290.9%) in those isolates tested in Germany and Hungary (Figure 21). Co-resistance to
ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was not detected among the multiresistant isolates (five MSs, N=239)
(Table COMSALMTURKMEAT).
sus
France (N=173)
res1
res2
Germany (N=31) res3

res4
res5
Hungary (N=22)
res6
res7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkey meat in MSs in 2014

Table 13: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp. isolates from meat from broilers and meat from fattening turkeys in 2014
Country Ampicillin Azithromycin Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin Colistin (a)
Meat from broilers
Austria 24 0 24 0 24 0 24 0 24 0 24 62.5 24 0
Belgium 81 23.5 81 6.2 81 3.7 81 2.5 81 4.9 81 43.2 81 3.7
Czech Republic 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 24 50 14.0
France 169 5.9 169 1.2 169 0 169 0 169 0.6 169 1.2 169 2.4
Germany 41 12.2 41 2.4 41 0 41 0 41 4.9 41 29.3 41 7.3
Hungary 47 4.3 47 0 47 0 47 0 47 0 47 97.9 47 0
Ireland 28 0 27 0 27 0 28 0 25 0 29 0 27 0
Poland 31 29.0 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 64.5 31 0
Slovakia 57 14.0 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 70.2 57 3.5
Slovenia 15 6.7 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 93.3 15 0
Spain 130 6.9 130 5.4 130 0.8 130 0.8 130 6.2 130 70 130 13.8
Total (MSs 11) 673 9.4 672 2.2 672 0.6 673 0.4 670 2.2 674 42.6 672 5.5
Meat from fattening turkeys
France 173 24.3 173 0 173 0 173 0 173 10.4 173 6.9 173 38.7
Germany 31 64.5 31 6.5 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 74.2 31 0
Hungary 22 27.3 22 0 22 0 22 0 22 0 22 90.9 22 0
Total (MSs 3) 226 30.1 226 0.9 226 0 226 0 226 8 226 24.3 226 29.6
Country Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Sulfamethoxazole Tetracycline Tigecycline Trimethoprim

N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res
Meat from broilers
Austria 24 0 24 62.5 24 62.5 24 62.5 24 8.3 24 0
Belgium 81 0 81 42.0 81 39.5 81 0 81 53.1
Czech Republic 50 0 50 24.0 50 24.0 50 24.0 50 0 50 0
France 169 0 169 0 169 4.7 169 3.6 169 0 169 1.8
Germany 41 0 41 29.3 41 9.8 41 7.3 41 0 41 26.8
Hungary 47 4.3 47 97.9 47 85.1 47 78.7 47 27.7 47 4.3
Ireland 26 0 27 0 29 0 28 0 28 0 28 0
Poland 31 0 31 41.9 31 29.0 31 29.0 31 0 31 0
Slovakia 57 0 57 70.2 57 63.2 57 63.2 57 0 57 0
Slovenia 15 0 15 93.3 15 93.3 15 93.3 15 13.3 15 0
Spain 130 2.3 130 62.3 130 9.2 130 8.5 130 3.8 130 4.6
Total (MSs 11) 671 0.7 672 39.7 674 27.0 673 21.2 592 3.7 673 9.7
Meat from fattening turkeys
France 173 0.6 173 6.4 173 22.5 173 65.9 173 1.7 173 17.3
Germany 31 6.5 31 61.3 31 32.3 31 61.3 31 0 31 3.2
Hungary 22 0 22 90.9 22 54.5 22 59.1 22 27.3 22 4.5
Total (MSs 3) 226 1.3 226 22.1 226 27.0 226 64.6 226 4 226 14.2
All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem. N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates; : no information available; MSs: Member States.
(a): A number of colistin-resistant isolates are undergoing testing for the presence of mcr-1 gene. The reported occurrence of colistin resistance is unlikely to equate to the occurrence of mcr-1.

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. in flocks from broilers
Resistance levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler flocks

In 2014, 22 MSs reported on Salmonella spp. in broiler flocks (Table 14). Most MSs recorded high to
extremely high resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline, for which
overall resistance equalled 53.5%, 48.7%, 45.1% and 40.4%, respectively. Overall resistance to
ampicillin was moderate at 19.1%. Resistance to azithromycin, chloramphenicol and gentamicin was
overall low, although resistance levels varied markedly from none to 35.3% between MSs. Resistance
to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was generally either not detected (in 12 MSs) or reported at very low to
low levels (MSs), except in the Netherlands and Italy, where moderate to high levels were respectively
registered. Ireland and Malta detected isolates resistant to ceftazidime but not to cefotaxime. Colistin
resistance was overall low at 7.6%, whereas varying markedly between MSs. As Romania, where the
resistance levels observed were among the highest reported, accounted for nearly one quarter of the
Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler flocks included in the analysis (Table 14), the resistance rates
presented at the reporting MS group level are highly impacted by the occurrence of resistance
recorded in Romania.
Multidrug resistance in Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler flocks

Twenty-two MSs submitted isolate-based data included in the MDR analysis (N=2,243). Situations
varied markedly between MSs, as from 5.6% to 100% of the Salmonella spp. isolates were
multiresistant, and none to 91.7% of them were fully susceptible to the nine antimicrobial classes
considered (Figure 22) (Table COMSALMBR). Microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and
cefotaxime was generally low in Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers (1.8%) and it was observed in
six of the 22 MSs, ranging up to 27.3% in the isolates tested in Italy (Table COMSALMBR). Clinical
resistance to both ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was rare, and only detected in one S. Kentucky isolate
in Spain (Table COMSALMBR).
France (N=36)
Ireland (N=14)
Greece (N=20)
Czech Republic (N=212)
Denmark (N=26)
United Kingdom (N=168)
Iceland (N=16) sus
Germany (N=28) res1
Austria (N=113) res2
Netherlands (N=88) res3
Portugal (N=51)
res4
Italy (N=66)
res5
Croatia (N=126)
Cyprus (N=45) res6
Poland (N=85) res7
Slovakia (N=20) res8
Belgium (N=170) res9
Romania (N=553)
Spain (N=135)
Hungary (N=169)
Slovenia (N=85)
Bulgaria (N=17)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from broilers in MSs in 2014

Spatial trends in resistance among Salmonella spp. from broiler flocks

Low levels of ciprofloxacin resistance (< 10.0%) were reported by only a few MSs from northern and
western Europe (Denmark, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom) (Figure 23). The levels of
resistance to nalidixic acid in Salmonella spp. from broilers were extremely high (> 70%) in some MSs
from eastern and southern Europe (Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia), and high to
very high in most other MSs (Figure 24). High level of resistance to cefotaxime was reported in one
MS (Figure 25).
Figure 23: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
countries reporting MIC data in 2014

Figure 24: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
Figure 25: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in

Table 14: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
Country Ampicillin Azithromycin Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin Colistin (a)

Austria 113 1.8 113 0.9 113 0 113 0 113 0.9 113 50.4 113 19.5
Belgium 167 28.7 167 0.6 167 4.2 167 3 167 1.2 167 26.3 167 2.4
Bulgaria 17 47.1 17 0 17 0 17 35.3 17 94.1 (a)
Croatia 126 7.1 126 4.0 126 0 126 0 126 0 126 62.7 126 0
Cyprus 45 35.6 45 0 45 8.9 45 8.9 45 0 45 68.9 45 0
Czech Republic 212 7.5 212 0.5 212 0.5 212 0.5 212 0 212 24.5 212 35.8
Denmark 26 30.8 26 0 26 0 26 0 26 0 26 0 26 0
France 36 2.8 36 0 36 0 36 0 36 0 36 2.8 36 2.8
Germany 28 14.3 28 3.6 28 0 28 0 28 0 28 42.9 28 0
Greece 20 5 20 5 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 25.0 20 0
Hungary 169 5.3 169 3.6 169 0 169 0 169 6.5 169 81.1 169 4.7
Ireland 16 12.5 17 0 17 0 16 6.3 19 0 15 0 17 0
Italy 66 43.9 66 1.5 66 27.3 66 25.8 66 6.1 66 54.5 66 0
Malta 60 40 60 3.3 60 16.7 60 8.3 20 50.0
Netherlands 88 39.8 88 0 88 17 88 17 88 6.8 88 31.8 88 15.9
Poland 85 22.4 85 0 85 0 85 0 85 2.4 85 67.1 85 0
Portugal 51 15.7 51 2.0 51 2 51 2 51 3.9 51 51.0 51 5.9
Romania 554 23.3 554 4.3 554 0.4 554 0.4 554 6.3 554 78.0 (a)
Slovakia 19 10.5 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 78.9 19 15.8
Slovenia 85 8.2 85 1.2 85 0 85 0 85 1.2 85 83.5 85 2.4
Spain 135 40 135 0 135 2.2 135 2.2 135 11.1 135 63.0 135 3.7
United Kingdom 168 3.6 168 0 168 0 168 0 168 1.2 168 3.6 168 0
Total (MSs 22) 2,286 19.1 2,210 1.9 2,287 2.3 2,286 2.6 2,289 4.0 2,245 53.5 1,656 8.3
Iceland 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0


Austria 113 0 113 50.4 113 49.6 113 50.4 113 1.8 113 0
Belgium 167 1.8 167 24.6 167 24.6 167 7.2 167 1.8 167 79.6
Bulgaria 17 5.9 17 100 17 100 17 100 17 17.6 17 64.7
Croatia 126 0.8 126 64.3 126 15.1 126 11.1 126 0 126 4.0
Cyprus 45 20.0 45 66.7 45 68.9 45 68.9 45 15.6 45 53.3
Czech Republic 212 1.4 212 23.1 212 22.6 212 20.3 212 1.9 212 0.9
Denmark 26 0 26 0 26 26.9 26 30.8 26 0 26 0
France 36 0 36 2.8 36 5.6 36 5.6 36 2.8 36 2.8
Germany 28 0 28 42.9 28 32.1 28 25.0 28 0 28 21.4
Greece 20 0 20 10 20 20.0 20 15.0 20 0 20 10.0
Hungary 169 2.4 169 79.9 169 68.0 169 67.5 169 30.2 169 0
Ireland 18 0 17 0 15 13.3 16 6.3 16 0 16 0
Italy 66 0 66 53.0 66 50.0 66 53.0 66 6.1 66 45.5
Malta 60 5 60 30.0 60 36.7 60 35.0 60 10.0
Netherlands 88 1.1 88 29.5 88 43.2 88 30.7 88 4.5 88 19.3
Poland 85 0 85 57.6 85 20.0 85 21.2 85 0 85 1.2
Portugal 51 3.9 51 31.4 51 11.8 51 9.8 51 0 51 7.8
Romania 554 14.8 554 71.8 553 67.5 554 62.6 554 16.8 554 17.5
Slovakia 19 0 19 78.9 19 68.4 19 68.4 19 5.3 19 0
Slovenia 85 0 85 84.7 85 83.5 85 82.4 85 24.7 85 1.2
Spain 135 21.5 135 40.0 135 39.3 135 33.3 135 1.5 135 10.4
United Kingdom 168 8.3 168 3.6 168 31.0 168 20.2 168 6.0 168 19.0
Total (MSs 22) 2,288 6.6 2,287 48.7 2,284 45.1 2,286 40.4 2,226 9.3 2,286 16.9
Iceland 16 0 16 0 16 43.8 16 0 16 0 16 0
All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem.
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates; : no information available; MSs: Member States.

Antimicrobial resistance in certain Salmonella serovars in broiler flocks
Resistance levels in S. Infantis isolates from broiler flocks

S. Infantis is the most frequently reported serovars in broiler flocks, accounting for 36.5% of the
Salmonella isolates serotyped (N=2,417). In S. Infantis isolates from broilers (19 MSs, Table 16),
resistance to sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline was mostly high to extremely high (overall 82.7% and
81.3%, respectively), whereas resistance to ampicillin overall was moderate (10.9%), but varied
considerably from none to extremely high. Only five MSs observed resistance to chloramphenicol and
gentamicin (overall 3.6% and 2.9%, respectively). The Czech Republic and Italy recorded resistance
to cefotaxime (15.0% and 54.5%, respectively) and three MSs reported resistance to ceftazidime
resulting in an overall low occurrence (2.6%). Extremely high levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin and
nalidixic acid were found in S. Infantis from most MSs, except Denmark and Spain. It is notable that
isolates from Romania represented 39.8% of the S. Infantis isolates.
Multidrug resistance in S. Infantis isolates from broiler flocks

Most (> 80%) of the S. Infantis isolates from broilers (19 MSs, N=797) included in the MDR analysis
were multiresistant (Figure 26). Microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was
detected by Cyprus (15%) and Italy (54.5%) (Tables COMINFANBR).
Denmark (N=7)
Spain (N=1)
France (N=4)
Iceland (N=7)
Netherlands (N=10)
Germany (N=10) sus
Belgium (N=11) res1
Cyprus (N=20) res2
Italy (N=33) res4
Austria (N=56) res5
Romania (N=317) res6
Bulgaria (N=10) res7
Croatia (N=42) res8
Greece (N=1) res9
Hungary (N=125)
Poland (N=17)
Slovakia (N=13)
Slovenia (N=71)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Infantis from broilers in MSs in 2014
Spatial trends in resistance among S. Infantis from broiler flocks

The levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin in S. Infantis from broilers were extremely high at 100% in
some MSs from eastern and southern Europe (Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia), and
very high in all other MSs (Figure 27). Resistance to cefotaxime was reported by only two MSs
(Figure 29).

Figure 27: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers in
Figure 28: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers in

Figure 29: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers in
Resistance levels in S. Enteritidis isolates from broiler flocks

S. Enteritidis is the second most frequently reported serovars in broiler flocks, accounting for 13.5%,
of the Salmonella isolates serotyped (N=2,417). Among S. Enteritidis isolates from broilers (15 MSs,
Table 15), the overall resistance to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, gentamicin, sulfamethoxazole and
tetracycline was at low levels; Romania being the only MS reporting high to very high levels of
resistance to all these antimicrobials. High levels of resistance to ampicillin and gentamicin were
reported by Portugal. Overall, resistance to nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin were high in S. Enteritidis
(24.6% and 23.3%, respectively), ranging from none to 100% in individual MSs.
Multidrug resistance in S. Enteritidis isolates from broiler flocks

Microbiological resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was only reported by Portugal in a single
isolate of S. Enteritidis. Most of the S. Enteritidis isolates (70.1%) were fully susceptible to all nine
antimicrobials classes included in the MDR analysis for broilers (14 MSs, N=304) (Figure 30).
However, only 26.7% and 22.2% of the S. Enteritidis from broilers in Poland and Portugal,
respectively, were fully susceptible. 65.0% of the S. Enteritidis from Romania were multiresistant.
Microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was detected in one isolate of
S. Enteritidis from Portugal (Tables COMENTERBR). In broilers, resistance to colistin was noted in
40% of S. Enteritidis isolates.

Austria (N=16)
Denmark (N=1)
France (N=1)
Germany (N=1) sus
Italy (N=1) res1
Croatia (N=30) res2
Czech Republic res3
Netherlands (N=13) res4

Hungary (N=11) res5
Slovakia (N=5) res6
Belgium (N=15) res7
Poland (N=45) res8
Portugal (N=9) res9
Romania (N=20)
Spain (N=2)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers in MSs in 2014
Spatial trends in resistance among S. Enteritidis from broiler flocks

Low levels of ciprofloxacin resistance (<10.0%) were reported by only two MSs Croatia and the Czech
Republic (Figure 31). The levels of resistance to nalidixic acid in Salmonella spp. from broilers were
extremely high (>70%) in two MSs,Poland and Romania, moderate in Hungary and the Netherlands
and low Croatia and the Czech Republic (Figure 32). The resistance to cefotaxime was reported by
only one country, but with less than 10 isolates tested (Figure 33).

Figure 31: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers
in countries reporting MIC data in 2014
Figure 32: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers

Figure 33: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers in
Resistance levels in S. Kentucky isolates from broiler flocks

S. Kentucky is the fourth most frequently reported serovars in broiler flocks, accounting for 4.8% of
the Salmonella isolates serotyped (N=2,417). In S. Kentucky isolates from broilers (10 MSs,
Table KENTBRD), overall, high to extremely high levels of resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin,
gentamicin, nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline were reported, whereas resistance varied
markedly between MSs from none to 100%. Conversely, resistance to chloramphenicol, colistin,
tigecycline and trimethropim was overall low. Two of the ten reporting MSs registered low to
moderate levels of resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime. It is of note that Romania accounted for
38.3% of the S. Kentucky isolates analysed.
Multidrug resistance in S. Kentucky isolates from broiler flocks

In S. Kentucky isolates from broilers (eight MSs, N=82) 85.4% of the isolates included in the MDR
analysis were multiresistant (Figure 34, Tables COMKENBR). Microbiological and clinical co-resistance
to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was detected in Spain (4.5%) (Tables COMKENBR).

Austria (N=1) sus

Ireland (N=2) res1
res2
Cyprus (N=7) res3
Romania (N=40) res4
res5
Belgium (N=1)
res6
res8
Hungary (N=2)
res9
Netherlands (N=1)
Spain (N=22)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Kentuky from broilers in MSs in 2014
Resistance levels in S. Typhimurium and monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates from broiler flocks
Resistance levels to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline (overall 33.342.5%) in
S. Typhimurium isolates from broilers (Table TYPHIBRD) were found to mainly be high to extremely
high. Chloramphenicol resistance varied from none to 100% (overall 16.1%), whereas resistance to
gentamicin was reported by only one MS. Resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was reported only
by Belgium, whereas nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin resistance varied markedly between MSs from
none to 100% (Romania). In broilers, 32.5% (17 MSs, N=83) of the S. Typhimurium isolates were
multiresistant. Microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was only reported for one
isolate by Belgium (Tables COMTYPHIBR).
monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates from broilers (Table MONTPHIYBRD) were found to mainly
be high to extremely high. Chloramphenicol resistance was registered only by Malta (50.0%), whereas
resistance to gentamicin was reported only by the United Kingdom. Resistance to cefotaxime and
ceftazidime was reported only by Malta (50.0%) and the Netherlands (20.0%), whereas nalidixic acid
and ciprofloxacin resistance was reported only by Belgium. In broilers, 74.2% (eight MSs, N=31) of
the monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates were multiresistant. Microbiological co-resistance to
ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was not reported. (Tables COMMONTYPHIBR).

Table 15: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from broilers in 2014
Country Ampicillin Azithromycin Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin Colistin(a)

Austria 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 100
Belgium 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 13.3
Croatia 30 3.3 30 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 30 3.3 30 0
Czech Republic 136 5.1 136 0 136 0 136 0 136 0 136 6.6 136 55.1
Denmark 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
France 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Germany 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Hungary 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 18.2 11 45.5
Italy 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Netherlands 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 15.4 13 69.2
Poland 45 11.1 45 0 45 0 45 0 45 0 45 73.3 45 0
Portugal 9 33.3 9 0 9 11.1 9 11.1 9 0 9 77.8 9 33.3
Romania 20 70 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 55.0 20 85
Slovakia 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 50 4 75.0
Spain 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 100 2 100
Total (MSs 15) 305 9.8 305 0 305 0.3 305 0.3 305 3.6 305 24.6 285 40.4


Austria 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0
Belgium 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 46.7
Croatia 30 0 30 3.3 30 3.3 30 0 30 0 30 0
Czech Republic 136 0 136 6.6 136 2.2 136 0 136 0 136 0
Denmark 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
France 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Germany 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Hungary 11 0 11 18.2 11 0 11 18.2 11 0 11 0
Italy 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Netherlands 13 0 13 15.4 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0
Poland 45 0 45 64.4 45 0 45 2.2 45 0 45 0
Portugal 9 22.2 9 77.8 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0
Romania 20 20.0 20 85.0 20 55.0 20 60.0 20 0 20 30.0
Slovakia 4 0 4 50.0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0
Spain 2 0 2 100 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Total (MSs 15) 305 2.0 305 23.3 305 4.9 305 4.9 305 0 305 4.3
All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem. N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates.
(a): A number of colistin-resistant isolates are undergoing testing for the presence of the mcr-1 gene. The reported occurrence of colistin resistance does not equate to the occurrence of mcr-1.

Table 16: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Infantis isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs

N % Res N % Res N % Res N N % Res N % Res N % Res N
Austria 56 0 56 1.8 56 0 56 0 56 0 56 96.4 56 3.6
Belgium 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 63.6 11 0
Bulgaria 10 40.0 10 0 10 0 10 20 10 100 (a)
Croatia 42 4.8 42 11.9 42 0 42 0 42 0 42 100 42 0
Cyprus 20 30 20 0 20 15 20 15.0 20 0 20 90 20 0
Czech Republic 41 9.8 41 2.4 41 0 41 0 41 0 41 90.2 41 0
Denmark 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0
France 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 25 4 0
Germany 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 60 10 0
Greece 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100 1 0
Hungary 125 3.2 125 4 125 0 125 0 125 7.2 125 100 125 1.6
Italy 33 75.8 33 0 33 54.5 33 51.5 33 9.1 33 90.9 33 0
Malta 7 14.3 7 0 7 14.3 7 0 3 100
Netherlands 10 20.0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 10 10 30 10 0
Poland 17 35.3 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 82.4 17 0
Romania 317 8.5 317 4.1 317 0 317 0 317 4.1 317 94.3 (a)
Slovakia 13 15.4 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 100 13 0
Slovenia 71 5.6 71 1.4 71 0 71 0 71 1.4 71 100 71 2.8
Spain 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Total (MSs 19) 796 10.9 779 3.3 796 2.6 796 2.6 796 3.6 792 92.7 462 1.3
Iceland 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0

Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Sulfamethoxazole Tetracycline Tigecycline Trimethoprim

Country
Austria 56 0 56 96.4 56 96.4 56 96.4 56 3.6 56 0
Belgium 11 0 11 63.6 11 63.6 11 45.5 11 27.3 11 63.6
Bulgaria 10 10.0 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 30 10 70.0
Croatia 42 0 42 100 42 26.2 42 26.2 42 0 42 0
Cyprus 20 5.0 20 90.0 20 90 20 90.0 20 35.0 20 90.0
Czech Republic 41 2.4 41 87.8 41 90.2 41 90.2 41 9.8 41 0
Denmark 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0
France 4 0 4 25.0 4 25.0 4 25.0 4 25 4 0
Germany 10 0 10 60.0 10 60.0 10 60.0 10 0 10 0
Greece 1 0 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 0 1 100
Hungary 125 1.6 125 100 125 84.0 125 83.2 125 37.6 125 0
Italy 33 0 33 90.9 33 87.9 33 90.9 33 12.1 33 84.8
Malta 7 0 7 42.9 7 42.9 7 42.9 7 0
Netherlands 10 0 10 30.0 10 50.0 10 40.0 10 20.0 10 30.0
Poland 17 0 17 82.4 17 88.2 17 88.2 17 0 17 5.9
Romania 317 5.7 317 94.3 317 86.1 317 83.6 317 21.8 317 22.4
Slovakia 13 0 13 100 13 100 13 100 13 7.7 13 0
Slovenia 71 0 71 100 71 98.6 71 98.6 71 29.6 71 0
Spain 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Total (MSs 19) 796 2.9 796 92.1 796 82.7 796 81.3 789 20.8 796 17.1
Iceland 7 0 7 0 7 42.9 7 0 7 0 7 0
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates; : no information available; MSs: Member States.Issues with quality of data
(a): A number of colistin-resistant isolates are undergoing testing for the presence of mcr-1 gene. The reported occurrence of colistin resistance is unlikey to equate to the occurrence of mcr-1.

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. in flocks of laying hens
Resistance levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from laying hen flocks

In 2014, 15 MSs reported data on Salmonella spp. in laying hens (Table 17). Most MSs registered low
to moderate levels of resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and
tetracycline, whereas four MSs reported high levels of resistance to at least one of these
antimicrobials. Resistance to chloramphenicol and gentamicin was generally low. Resistance to
cefotaxime and ceftazidime was low, and only three Salmonella spp. isolates, from three MSs, showed
resistance to both antimicrobials. Compared with isolates from broilers, with the exception of colistin
resistance, lower levels of resistance were reported in Salmonella spp. from laying hens.
Multidrug resistance in Salmonella spp. isolates from laying hen flocks

Most (74.1%) of the Salmonella spp. isolates included in the MDR analysis (22 MSs, N=858) were fully
susceptible to the 11 antimicrobials considered (Figure 35), and between none and 41.3% of the
Salmonella spp. isolates were multiresistant in reporting MSs (overall MDR, 9.7%). Microbiological co-
resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was very low at 0.12%, as it was observed in only one
isolate from Romania (Table COMSALMLAY).
Slovenia (N=15)
Netherlands (N=44)
France (N=86)
Croatia (N=19) sus
res1
Germany (N=80)
res2
Hungary (N=57)
res3
Poland (N=45)
res4
Greece (N=43)
res5
Spain (N=138)
res6
Portugal (N=38) res7
Austria (N=45) res8
Italy (N=81) res9
Cyprus (N=17)
Romania (N=46)
Belgium (N=29)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the EFSA common set for Salmonella; res1res9: resistance to one
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from laying hens in MSs in 2014
Spatial trends in resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hen flocks
The levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin in Salmonella spp. from laying hens were high in some MSs
from Eastern and Southern Europe (Cyprus, Hungary, Italy and Romania), and low to moderate in
other reporting MSs (Figure 36). The levels of resistance to nalidixic acid were very similar to the
levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin (Figure 37). Low level of resistance to cefotaxime was reported
only by France, Poland and Romania, whereas no resistance was reported from other 13 MSs across
Europe (Figure 38).

Figure 36: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens in
Figure 37: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens in

Figure 38: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens in
Temporal trends in resistance among Salmonella spp. from Gallus gallus

Seventeen MSs provided resistance data on 5 years or more to be included in the statistical analysis.
Over the 7 years of data, levels of resistance to ampicillin remained mostly constant for most of the
reporting MSs, although slight but statistically significant increases occurred in five MSs, whereas
statistically decreasing trends were observed in four other MSs. Statistically significant increasing
trends in resistance to ciprofloxacin and/or nalidixic acid were registered in seven MSs, whereas
statistically significant decreasing trends were observed in two MSs. Within each MS, similar levels of
resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid were observed from 2008 to 2014. Resistance to
cefotaxime is generally very low; however, a statistically significant increasing trend was observed in
one MSs, whereas the trend in five MSs was decreasing (Figure 39).
As antimicrobial resistance is associated with particular serovars or clones within serovars, fluctuations
in the occurrence of resistance in Salmonella spp. isolates within a country may be the result of
changes in the proportions of different Salmonella serovars which contribute to the total numbers of
Salmonella spp. isolates.
In S. Enteritidis, resistance to ampicillin remained relatively constant from 2008 to 2014 within each
MS, although slight but statistically significant increases occurred in two MSs (Figure 40). A statistically
significant increasing trend of resistance to ciprofloxacin and/or nalidixic acid in S. Enteritidis was
observed in two MSs, whereas statistically significant decreasing trends were observed in three MSs.
Resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid was comparable within MSs from 2008 to 2014.

Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark France

100
75
50
25
0
Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia
100
75
% Resistant isolates
50
25
0
Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia
100
75
50
25
0
Spain United Kingdom
100
75
50
25
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Year
AMR AMP CIP CTX NAL
A statistically significant trend for 5 or more years, as tested by a logistic regression model (p 0.05), was observed for
ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Austria (), Belgium (), Germany (), Italy (), Slovakia (), Slovenia (), for ampicillin in
Belgium (), the Czech Republic (), Denmark (), Italy () , the Netherlands (), Slovakia (), Slovenia (), Spain () and the
United Kingdom (), for ciprofloxacin in Portugal (), for cefotaxime in Belgium (), the Czech Republic (), France (), Germany
(), Italy () and the Netherlands (). A statistically significant trend was observed for ciprofloxacin in Portugal (), for nalidixic
acid in Portugal () and Spain ().
data

Austria Belgium Czech Republic France

100
75
50
25
0
Germany Hungary Italy Latvia
100
75
50
25
0
Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia
100
75
50
25
0
Spain
100
75
50
25
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Year
AMR AMP CIP CTX NAL
A statistically significant trend for 5 or more years, as tested by a logistic regression model (p 0.05), was observed in the
Czech Republic (), France (), Poland () and Portugal () for both ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid, for ampicillin in France ()
and Portugal (), for ciprofloxacin in Italy () and for cefotaxime in the Netherlands () and Portugal ().
quantitative data

Table 17: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp. isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
Austria 45 6.7 45 0 45 0 45 0 45 2.2 45 8.9 45 17.8
Belgium 29 10.3 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 41.4
Croatia 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 15.8 19 0
Cyprus 17 11.8 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 35.3 17 0
France 86 7 86 0 86 1.2 86 1.2 86 2.3 86 0 86 15.1
Germany 80 13.8 80 1.3 80 0 80 0 80 0 80 7.5 80 10
Greece 43 4.7 43 0 43 0 43 0 43 0 43 14 43 0
Hungary 57 8.8 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 21.1 57 12.3
Italy 81 11.1 81 0 81 0 81 0 81 2.5 81 39.5 81 11.1
Poland 45 2.2 45 0 45 2.2 45 2.2 45 2.2 45 17.8 45 0
Portugal 38 7.9 38 0 38 0 38 0 38 5.3 38 18.4 38 13.2
Romania 46 23.9 46 2.2 46 2.2 46 2.2 46 0 46 43.5 46 8.7
Slovenia 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0
Spain 138 8.7 138 0.7 138 0 138 0 138 2.2 138 15.2 138 8.7
United Kingdom 53 3.8 53 0 53 0 53 0 53 0 53 1.9 53 9.4
Total (MSs 15) 792 8.8 792 0.4 792 0.4 792 0.4 792 1.4 792 15.9 792 10.5


Austria 45 0 45 8.9 45 17.8 45 24.4 45 0 45 0
Belgium 29 0 29 0 29 6.9 29 0 29 0 29 86.2
Croatia 19 0 19 15.8 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 0
Cyprus 17 11.8 17 29.4 17 23.5 17 29.4 17 0 17 23.5
France 86 0 86 0 86 8.1 86 7 86 0 86 1.2
Germany 80 1.3 80 6.3 80 15 80 11.3 80 0 80 1.3
Greece 43 0 43 14 43 11.6 43 9.3 43 0 43 0
Hungary 57 1.8 57 22.8 57 14 57 17.5 57 5.3 57 3.5
Italy 81 1.2 81 39.5 81 9.9 81 9.9 81 0 81 3.7
Poland 45 0 45 15.6 45 2.2 45 2.2 45 0 45 0
Portugal 38 0 38 18.4 38 5.3 38 2.6 38 0 38 5.3
Romania 46 6.5 46 32.6 46 28.3 46 43.5 46 2.2 46 2.2
Slovenia 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0
Spain 138 2.9 138 11.6 138 8.7 138 8.7 138 0.7 138 2.9
United Kingdom 53 0 53 1.9 53 3.8 53 5.7 53 0 53 0
Total (MSs 15) 792 1.5 792 14.4 792 10.6 792 11.4 792 0.6 792 5.4
Note: All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates; MSs: Member States
..

Antimicrobial resistance in certain Salmonella serovars in laying hen flocks

The most commonly reported serovars in laying hen flocks were S. Enteritidis (27.3%),
S. Typhimurium (7.9%) and S. Infantis (7.6%) (Table SERLAY). Considering all of the serotyped
isolates submitted from laying hens, there were five or fewer isolates for 54 serovars and single
isolates belonging to 33 different serovars.
Resistance levels in S. Enteritidis isolates from laying hen flocks

S. Enteritidis was the most common serovar identified (27.3%) from laying hen flocks in 2014. In
S. Enteritidis isolates from laying hens (17 MSs, Table 18), the overall resistance to ampicillin,
chloramphenicol, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline was at low levels. Resistance to azithromycin and
gentamicin was not reported by any of MSs. Overall, resistance to nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin were
moderate in S. Enteritidis (15.2% and 14.8%, respectively). Microbiological resistance to cefotaxime
and ceftazidime was reported at low levels only by Poland in S. Enteritidis.
Multidrug resistance in S. Enteritidis isolates from laying hen flocks

Most of the S. Enteritidis isolates (77.1%) were fully susceptible to all 11 antimicrobials included in the
MDR analysis for laying hens (17 MSs, N=236) (Figure 41). Multiresistant isolates were only reported
by France and Romania. Microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was not
reported (Tables COMENTERLAY). In layers, resistance to colistin was noted in 31.9% of S. Enteritidis
isolates.
Croatia (N=11)
Denmark (N=1)
Italy (N=10) sus
Latvia (N=3) res1
Netherlands (N=25)
res2
Germany (N=20)
Greece (N=14) res3
Hungary (N=21) res4
Romania (N=15)
res5
Austria (N=7)
United Kingdom (N=7) res6
France (N=18) res7
Portugal (N=19)
res8
Poland (N=23)
Spain (N=20) res9
Belgium (N=14)
Estonia (N=1)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from laying hens in MSs in 2014
Spatial trends in resistance among S. Enteritidis from laying hen flocks

Low levels of ciprofloxacin resistance (< 10.0%) were reported by two MSs (Hungary and Romania)
(Figure 42). The levels of resistance to nalidixic acid in S. Enteritidis from laying hens were low in
Hungary and Romania, high in Portugal and Poland and very high in Spain (Figure 43). Resistance to
cefotaxime was reported by only Poland (Figure 44).

Figure 42: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
hens in countries reporting MIC data in 2014
Figure 43: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying

Figure 44: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
Resistance and multidrug resistance in S. Typhimurium isolates from laying hen flocks
S. Typhimurium isolates from laying hens (Table TYPHILAYD) were found to be moderate to very
high levels. The overall resistance to chloramphenicol and trimethoprim was reported at low levels
(6.34.7%) whereas the resistance to the other antimicrobials tested required by the legislation was
not detected.
In laying hen flocks, 16.4% (18 MSs, N=67) of the S. Typhimurium isolates were multiresistant.
Microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was not detected by any of the
reporting MSs (Tables COMTYPHILAY).
Resistance and multidrug resistance in monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates from laying hen flocks
monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates from laying hens (Table MONTYPHILAYD) were observed at
very to extremely high levels. Resistance to chloramphenicol and trimethoprim was not reported,
whereas resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid was registered only in one MS.
In laying hen flocks, 66.7% (three MSs, N=6) of the monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates were
multiresistant. Microbiological co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was not detected by any
of the reporting MSs (Tables COMMONTYPHILAY).
Resistance and multi-drug resistance in S. Infantis isolates from laying hen flocks
The overall resistances in S. Infantis isolates from laying hens (14 MSs, Table 19), were much lower
than the one registered in broilers. Only 31.7% of the S. Infantis isolates from laying hens (13 MSs,
N=60) included in the MDR analysis were multiresistant (Figure 45, Tables COMINFANLAY).

Poland (N=6)
France (N=1)
Germany (N=1)
Spain (N=18)
sus
Greece (N=3) res1
Italy (N=3) res2
res3
Hungary (N=6) res4
Belgium (N=7) res5
res6
Austria (N=4) res7
Bulgaria (N=1) res8
res9
Croatia (N=2)
Cyprus (N=1)
Romania (N=7)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Infantis from laying hens in MSs in 2014
Resistance and multidrug resistance in S. Infantis isolates from laying hen flocks
The overall resistances in S. Kentucky isolates from laying hens (five MSs, Table KENTLAYD), were
lower than those registered in broilers. 27.5% of the S. Kentucky isolates from laying hens (four MSs,
N=40) included in the MDR analysis were multiresistant (Figure 46, Tables COMINFANLAY).
Spain (N=6) sus

res1
res2
Italy (N=30)
res3
res4
Hungary (N=1) res5
res6
res7
Romania (N=3)
res8
res9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 46: Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine
antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Kentucky from laying hens in MSs in 2014

Table 18: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from laying hens in 2014
N % Res N % Res N % Res N N % Res N % Res N % Res N
Austria 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 85.7
Belgium 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 85.7
Croatia 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0
Czech Republic 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 50.0
Denmark 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100
Estonia 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100 1 0
France 18 16.7 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 5.6 18 0 18 16.7
Germany 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 35.0
Greece 14 7.1 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0
Hungary 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 21 9.5 21 28.6
Italy 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 80.0
Latvia 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100
Poland 23 4.3 23 0 23 4.3 23 4.3 23 0 23 34.8 23 0
Portugal 19 5.3 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 36.8 19 26.3
Romania 15 6.7 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 6.7 15 6.7
Spain 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 60 20 55.0
United Kingdom 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 14.3 7 28.6
Total (MSs 17) 210 3.3 210 0 210 0.5 210 0.5 210 0.5 210 15.2 210 31.9


Austria 7 0 7 0 7 14.3 7 0 7 0 7 0
Belgium 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 85.7
Croatia 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0
Czech Republic 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0
Denmark 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Estonia 1 0 1 100 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
France 18 0 18 0 18 16.7 18 16.7 18 0 18 5.6
Germany 20 0 20 0 20 5 20 0 20 0 20 0
Greece 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 7.1 14 0 14 0
Hungary 21 0 21 9.5 21 0 21 0 21 4.8 21 0
Italy 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0
Latvia 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Poland 23 0 23 30.4 23 4.3 23 0 23 0 23 0
Portugal 19 0 19 36.8 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 0
Romania 15 0 15 6.7 15 6.7 15 6.7 15 6.7 15 0
Spain 20 0 20 60.0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0
United Kingdom 7 0 7 14.3 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0
Total (MSs 17) 210 0 210 14.8 210 3.3 210 2.4 210 1.0 210 6.2
Note: All Salmonella isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem. N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates; MSs: Member States
.

Table 19: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella Infantis isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
Ampicillin Azithromycin Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin Colistin(a)

Country
Austria 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 100 4 0
Belgium 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0
Bulgaria 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100 1 0
Croatia 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 100 2 0
Cyprus 1 100 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100 1 0
France 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Germany 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Greece 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 33.3 3 0
Hungary 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 66.7 6 0
Italy 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
Latvia 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 25.0 4 0
Netherlands 2 50.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 50 2 0 2 0
Poland 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0
Romania 7 0 7 14.3 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 100 7 0
Spain 18 5.6 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0
Total (MSs 15) 67 4.5 62 1.6 67 0 67 0 67 1.5 67 31.3 67 0


Country
Austria 4 0 4 100 4 100 4 100 4 0 4 0
Belgium 8 0 8 0 8 12.5 8 0 8 0 8 87.5
Bulgaria 1 0 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 0
Croatia 2 0 2 100 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Cyprus 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 0 1 100
France 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Germany 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Greece 3 0 3 33.3 3 33.3 3 33.3 3 0 3 0
Hungary 6 0 6 66.7 6 66.7 6 66.7 6 16.7 6 0
Italy 3 0 3 0 3 33.3 3 0 3 0 3 0
Latvia 4 0 4 25 4 0 4 0 4 0
Netherlands 2 0 2 0 2 50.0 2 50.0 2 0 2 50.0
Poland 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0
Romania 7 0 7 100 7 100 7 100 7 0 7 0
Spain 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 5.6
Total (MSs 15) 67 1.5 67 31.3 67 31.3 67 28.4 63 3.2 67 14.9
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant isolates; : no information available; MSs: Member States.

Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. in flocks from fattening turkeys
Resistance levels in Salmonella spp. isolates from fattening turkey flocks

In 2014, nine MSs reported quantitative MIC data on Salmonella spp. isolates from fattening turkeys
(Table 20). Most MSs reported high to extremely high levels of resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin,
nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline, with the notable exception of Germany where no
resistance to ampicillin and low levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid were registered,
although in a low number of 13 isolates. Overall, the levels of resistance to these five antimicrobials
ranged between 43.7% and 68.3% (Table 20). Contrasting levels of resistance to chloramphenicol
and gentamicin were observed. As in previous years, chloramphenicol resistance was either not
recorded or observed at low levels in most MSs, with the exception of Spain which reported high
resistance (28.8%). Although moderate to high resistance levels to gentamicin were reported by five
MSs, the overall gentamicin resistance was low at 7.7%. Cefotaxime and ceftazidime resistance was
not recorded, whereas the overall resistance to azithromycin and tigecycline was low.
Multidrug resistance in Salmonella spp. isoaltes from fattening turkey flocks

Overall, MDR was assessed at 58.1% and the level of MDR varied considerably (from 7.7% to 96.0%)
between the 12 MSs which submitted data (N=743) (Figure 51, Tables COMSALMTURK).
Resistance levels in S. Derby and S. Kentucky isolates from fattening turkey flocks
High to extremely high levels of resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid,
sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline were found in the S. Kentucky isolates included in the analysis
(six MSs, Table 20). In contrast, resistance to azithromycin, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, colistin and
trimethoprim was absent. In fattening turkeys, 69.1% of the S. Kentucky isolates (six MSs, N=55)
included in the MDR analysis were multiresistant and none of these isolates was found fully
susceptible (Tables COMKENTURK).
It is notable that isolates from Spain and the United Kingdom represented 96.9% of the S. Derby
isolates and the resistance to the antimicrobial tested varied remarkably between these two MSs
(Table 20). Spain reported MDR in all (145) S. Derby isolates (Tables COMDERBYTURK).
Temporal trends in resistance among Salmonella from turkeys

Six MSs which reported data from 5 years or more were included in the statistical analysis. Statistically
significant increasing trends in resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and/or to ampicillin were
observed in one MS each. All reporting MSs observed a similarity in their trends in resistance to
ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid. In Poland and Spain, higher levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin than
to nalidixic acid were observed in 2014, probably reflecting the spread of plasmid-mediated genes
leading to fluoroquinolone resistance. In Poland in 2014, this was a feature in only five isolates,
whereas, in Spain, this was observed in 140 isolates, most of which (128 isolates; 91.4%) were
S. Derby. Plasmid-mediated ciprofloxacin resistance qnr genes have been demonstrated in isolates
from meat originating from Germany and Poland (Cavaco et al., 2009). Resistance to cefotaxime has
remained at a stable low level; statistical significant trends were not observed in any MS involved in
the analysis.
Spatial trends in resistance among Salmonella spp. from turkeys

The spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin in Salmonella spp. isolated from fattening turkeys in 2014
show great variation across the EU (Figure 48). Except for Germany, high to extremely high levels of
nalidixic acid resistance were observed across Europe (Figure 49), the highest occurrence being
observed in Hungary and Austria. Resistance to cefotaxime was not reported by any of MSs
(Figure 50).

Table 20: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Salmonella spp., Salmonella Kentucky and Salmonella Derby isolates from turkeys in 2014

Salmonella spp.
Austria 14 50.0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 71.4 14 7.1
Czech Republic 19 63.2 19 5.3 19 0 19 0 19 0 19 68.4 19 0
France 58 29.3 58 0 58 0 58 0 58 5.2 58 41.4 58 3.4
Germany 13 0 13 7.7 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 7.7 13 0
Hungary 170 53.5 170 4.1 170 0 170 0 170 2.9 170 90.6 170 0.6
Italy 35 62.9 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 2.9 35 28.6 35 8.6
Poland 29 72.4 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 6.9 29 79.3 29 0
Spain 226 94.7 226 0.9 226 0 226 0 226 28.8 226 92.9 226 2.7
United Kingdom 162 22.8 162 0 162 0 162 0 162 0.6 162 20.4 162 0
Total (MSs 9) 726 58.0 726 1.5 726 0 726 0 726 10.6 726 65.8 726 1.8
Salmonella Kentucky
Cyprus 2 100 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 100 2 0
Czech Republic 10 100 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 100 10 0
Hungary 28 100 28 0 28 0 28 0 28 7.1 28 96.4 28 0
Italy 1 100 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100 1 0
Poland 9 100 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 100 9 0
Spain 5 60 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 100 5 0
Total (MSs 6) 55 96.4 55 0 55 0 55 0 55 3.6 55 98.2 55 0
Salmonella Derby
Czech Republic 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
France 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
Hungary 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Spain 145 100 145 0.7 145 0 145 0 145 37.9 145 95.2 145 2.1
United Kingdom 41 2.4 41 0 41 0 41 0 41 0 41 0 41 0
Total (MSs 5) 192 76.0 192 0.5 192 0 192 0 192 28.6 192 71.9 192 1.6


Country
Salmonella spp.
Austria 14 35.7 14 71.4 14 14.3 14 35.7 14 0 14 14.3
Czech Republic 19 15.8 19 68.4 19 26.3 19 31.6 19 0 19 5.3
France 58 0 58 41.4 58 29.3 58 34.5 58 1.7 58 20.7
Germany 13 0 13 7.7 13 23.1 13 15.4 13 0 13 0
Hungary 170 11.2 170 82.4 170 38.2 170 72.4 170 24.7 170 10.0
Italy 35 31.4 35 22.9 35 62.9 35 71.4 35 0 35 17.1
Poland 29 31.0 29 62.1 29 37.9 29 58.6 29 0 29 0
Spain 226 4.0 226 31 226 73.9 226 96.9 226 0.9 226 69.0
United Kingdom 162 0 162 20.4 162 45.7 162 48.8 162 8 162 7.4
Total (MSs 9) 726 7.7 726 43.7 726 50.4 726 68.3 726 8 726 28.4
Salmonella Kentucky
Cyprus 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 0 2 0
Czech Republic 10 30 10 100 10 30.0 10 30 10 0 10 0
Hungary 28 67.9 28 96.4 28 67.9 28 71.4 28 3.6 28 0
Italy 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 0 1 0
Poland 9 77.8 9 100 9 77.8 9 77.8 9 0 9 0
Spain 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 0 5 0
Total (MSs 6) 55 67.3 55 98.2 55 67.3 55 69.1 55 1.8 55 0
Salmonella Derby
Czech Republic 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
France 3 0 3 0 3 66.7 3 66.7 3 0 3 0
Hungary 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
Spain 145 0 145 6.9 145 100 145 100 145 1.4 145 99.3
United Kingdom 41 0 41 0 41 85.4 41 87.8 41 0 41 0
Total (MSs 5) 192 0 192 5.2 192 94.8 192 95.3 192 1.0 192 75.0
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of microbiologically resistant; MSs: Member States.

Austria Czech Republic France

100
75
50
25
0
Germany Hungary Italy
100
75
50
25
0
Poland Spain United Kingdom
100
75
50
25
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Year
AMR AMP CIP CTX NAL
A statistically significant trend was observed for both ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Austria (), France (), Italy (), Poland
(), Spain () and United Kingdom (), for ampicillin in Italy (), Poland (), Spain () and United Kingdom (), and Spain ().
Salmonella spp. isolates from turkeys in reporting MSs, 20082014, quantitative data

Figure 48: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014
Figure 49: Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014

Figure 50: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014
Germany (N=13)
France (N=58)
sus
res2
Italy (N=35)
res3
res5
Poland (N=29)
res6
Austria (N=14) res7
res8
Hungary (N=170) res9
Spain (N=226)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkeys in 2014

Comparison of clinical and microbiological resistance to cefotaxime

Fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins, including the class representatives ciprofloxacin
and cefotaxime, are internationally recognised as critically important in human medicine (Collignon et
al., 2009) and often constitute the first-line treatment for invasive salmonellosis, although
fluoroquinolones are not recommended for children (Chen et al., 2013). Fluoroquinolones and, to a
lesser extent, third-generation cephalosporins may be used for treatment of animals, and the high
levels of ciprofloxacin resistance observed among Salmonella spp. in some animal species are of
concern. It is of note that, according to the EU legislation, antimicrobials shall not be used as a
specific method to control Salmonella in poultry.
In Salmonella spp. from broilers an overall low level of microbiological resistance to cefotaxime
(2.3%) was reported, and two MSs (the Netherlands and Italy) recorded moderate and high levels,
(17.0% and 27.3%, respectively). Low levels of cefotaxime resistance were reported in Belgium,
Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Spain and cefotaxime resistance was not detected in isolates from 15
reporting countries. Applying the EUCAST CBPs, clinical resistance was found in 8 out of 26 MSs,
contributing to an overall low level of clinical resistance to cefotaxime (2.0%). This is despite a
moderate occurrence of clinical resistance in isolates from the Netherlands, representing 17.0% of all
isolates and a high clinical resistance in isolates from Italy (Table 21: ). The microbiological and
clinical resistance to cefotaxime in Salmonella spp. from laying hens was very low (overall 0.3%),
and only three MSs reported low levels of resistance to cefotaxime. Cefotaxime resistance at
microbiological levels was not found in the isolates from fattening pigs.
The term microbiological resistance is used when resistance is interpreted using the EUCAST
epidemiological cut-off values, whereas the term clinical resistance is noted when resistance is
analysed using the EUCAST clinical breakpoints.
Quinolone and fluoroquinolone resistance in the Enterobacteriaceae is mostly attributed to point
mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining regions (QRDR) of the gyrase ( gyrA and gyrB) and
topoisomerase IV (parC and parD) genes. Plasmid mediated quinolone resistance (PMQR) can be
caused by the the action of efflux pumps (qepA genes), enzymatic modifications (aac(6)-Ib-cr gene,
which also confers resistance to kanamycin), and protection of the DNA gyrase ( qnrA, qnrB, qnrD and
qnrS genes) (Cavaco et al., 2009).
The presence of two single point mutations in the QRDR will usually confer clinical resistance to
ciprofloxacin (minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) > 0.064 mg/L) as well as to nalidixic acid
(MIC > 16mg/L). In contrast, isolates harbouring only one single point mutation in the QRDR will
usually show clinical resistance to nalidixic acid, whereas the susceptibility to ciprofloxacin is reduced
to only a microbiological resistance level.
In absence of other mechanisms, the presence of PMQR determinants (i.e. qnr genes) in a bacterium,
will confer only microbiological resistance to ciprofloxacin, but the isolate will be susceptible to
nalidixic acid.

Table 21: Occurrence of resistance to cefotaxime among Salmonella spp. from broilers, laying hens and fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmonised
ECOFFs and EUCAST CBPs
Country Broilers Laying hens Fattening turkeys

N n res % res n res % res N n res % res n res % res N n res % res n res % res
ECOFF ECOFF CBP CBP ECOFF ECOFF CBP CBP ECOFF ECOFF CBP CBP
Austria 113 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
Belgium 170 7 4.1 4 2.4 29 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
Bulgaria 17 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Croatia 126 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
Cyprus 45 4 8.9 4 8.9 17 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
Czech Republic 212 1 0.5 1 0.5 8 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0
Denmark 26 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Estonia 2 0 0 0 0
Finland 1 0 0 0 0
France 36 0 0 0 0 86 1 1.2 1 1.2 58 0 0 0 0
Germany 28 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0
Greece 20 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0
Hungary 169 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 0
Ireland 17 0 0 0 0
Italy 66 18 27.3 18 27.3 81 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0
Latvia 9 0 0 0 0
Malta 60 2 3.3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
Netherlands 88 15 17.0 15 17.0 44 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
Poland 85 0 0 0 0 45 1 2.2 1 2.2 29 0 0 0 0
Portugal 51 1 2.0 1 2.0 38 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Romania 554 2 0.4 2 0.4 46 1 2.2 1 2.2
Slovakia 20 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Slovenia 85 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
Spain 135 3 2.2 2 1.5 138 0 0 0 0 226 0 0 0 0
Sweden 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
United Kingdom 168 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 162 0 0 0 0
Total (MSs 26) 2,293 53 2.3 47 2.0 872 3 0.3 3 0.3 757 0 0 0 0
Iceland 16 0 0 0 0
ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off values; EUCAST: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; N: number of isolates tested; n: number of isolates resistant; % res: percentage of
resistant isolates; CBP: cllinical breakpoint.

Analysis of high-level ciprofloxacin resistance

High-level resistance to ciprofloxacin, defined as resistance to MIC values 4 mg/L, in Salmonella of
animal and food origin is shown in Tables HIGHSALMBRMEAT, HIGHSALMTURKMEAT,
HIGHSALMBR, HIGHSALMLAY and HIGHSALMTURK.
Most of the Salmonella isolates that displayed high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin originated from
fattening turkeys (7.3%), broiler meat (4.6%) and broilers (4.2%). No isolates from turkey meat
displayed high-level resistance; only eight S. Kentucky and one S. Kottbus isolates from laying hens
from Hungary, Romania and Spain exhibited such high-level resistance, comprising 1.4% of all
Salmonella isolates from layers.
One quarter of the Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers included in the analysis originated from
Romania, where 9.4% of the isolates showed high-level resistance (mainly S. Kentucky)
(Table HIGHSALMBR). Among the other 19 MSs included in the analysis of broiler isolates, high-level
resistance was reported by Bulgaria (5.9%, N=17), Croatia (0.8%, N=126), Cyprus (17.8%, N=45),
the Czech Republic (1.4%, N=212), Hungary (1.2%, N=169), Poland (1.2%, N=85) and Spain
(17.0%, N=135). Reflecting the generally lower levels of resistance in Salmonella from laying hens,
high-level ciprofloxacin resistance was observed in only three of the 12 included MSs: Hungary (1.8%,
N=57), Romania (8.7%, N=46) and Spain (2.9%, N=138). In addition, from Hungary and Spain,
isolates from broiler meat (4.3%, N=47 and 18.5%, N=130) displayed high-level ciprofloxacin
resistance.
In fattening turkeys, high-level ciprofloxacin resistance was observed in the Czech Republic (52.6%,
N=19), Hungary (15.3%, N=170), Italy (2.9%, N=35), Poland (34.5%, N=29) and Spain (2.7%,
N=226) (Table HIGHSALMTURK).
In poultry, a variety of serovars displayed high-level ciprofloxacin resistance and these isolates were
frequently also resistant to other antimicrobials. High-level resistance to ciprofloxacin was most often
observed in S. Kentucky isolates from Gallus gallus in Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Spain
and turkeys in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain and in broiler meat from Hungary
and Spain. Most of the S. Kentucky isolates with high-level ciprofloxacin resistance (n=161) were
multiresistant (73.3%), and most isolates (65.3%) were also resistant to gentamicin, ampicillin,
nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline often also streptomycin (Gen-Cip-Amp-Nal-Smx-Tet).
Resistance to several, or even all, other antimicrobials included in the MDR analysis were also
observed. Only Spain reported one isolate with high-level ciprofloxacin resistance and resistance to
cefotaxime and ceftazidime. Some isolates of S. Kentucky showed only high-level resistance to
ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance but were otherwise susceptible to the antimicrobials tested.
Estonia reported high-level ciprofloxacin resistance in a single isolate of S. Worthington from a pig.
S. Infantis also displayed high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin (n=11), and was encountered in
broilers from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Romania and broiler meat from
Hungary. 91.0% of the isolates were multiresistant and, besides the high-level ciprofloxacin
resistance, most S. Infantis isolates were also resistant to nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline
and, in most cases, trimethoprim and ampicillin. S. Enteritidis was reported in broilers by Poland
(n=1) and Romania (n=3), whereas a single isolate of the serovar S. Kottbus was reported from
laying hens and S. Bonariensis was reported from fattening turkeys.
Multidrug resistance patterns in certain Salmonella serovars

The data relating to Salmonella spp. from an MS typically cover a variety of different serovars, each of
which may have a different propensity to exhibit AMR. Differences in the occurrence of serovars
among MSs may account for much of the pronounced variation in the recorded MDR parameters for
Salmonella spp. For example, S. Enteritidis in general exhibited much lower MDR than
S. Typhimurium; however, there were marked differences between MSs in the occurrence of MDR for
each of these serovars.

Salmonella spp.
The patterns of AMR exhibited by all reported Salmonella isolates revealed numerous combinations of
resistance to the nine different antimicrobial agents included in the analysis. The reported MSs
occurrence of specific MDR profiles in meat and animals are presented in the MDR patterns tables. In
broiler flocks, eight serovars (Infantis, Enteritidis, Mbandaka, Kentucky, Senftenberg, Typhimurium,
Agona and Montevideo) accounted for 74.1% of Salmonella spp. (Table SERBR). A further 102
serovars were reported from broilers and 44 of these were represented by only single isolates. In
laying hen flocks, eight serovars (Enteritidis, Typhimurium, Infantis, Kentucky, Montevideo,
Mbandaka, Senftenberg and Livingstone) accounted for 62.3% of Salmonella spp (Table SERLAY).
There were a further 75 serovars reported from laying hen flocks. In fattening turkey flocks, eight
serovars (Derby, Kentucky, Newport, Hadar, Infantis, Saintpaul, Bredeney and Stanley) accounted for
68.1% of Salmonella spp. (Table SEROFATTURK). There were a further 40 serovars reported from
fattening turkeys.
Detailed analysis of the specific patterns of resistance detected is most useful when performed at the
serovar level. However, the overall data from all Salmonella spp. have also been examined to
determine the pattern most common in highly prevalent sources per country. In broilers, where
982/2223 (44.2%) of isolates were MDR (Table MULTISALMBR) and broiler meat where 148/564
(26.2%) of isolates were MDR (Table MULTISALMBRMEAT), the most common resistance pattern was
a combination of ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline, followed by the same
pattern with the addition of tigecycline, both patterns accounting for 22.4% of the broiler isolates and
19.2% of the broiler meat isolates included in the analysis. The majority of isolates with these
patterns of resistance both from broilers (95.8% of isolates with this pattern) and from broiler meat
(95.4% of isolates with this pattern) were S. Infantis. These resistant profiles were predominately
reported in broilers by Austria (98.2%), the Czech Republic (81.4%), Hungary (83.9%) and Slovakia
(84.6%) and in meat from broilers by Austria and the Czech Republic (100%), Hungary (89.2%),
Slovakia (77.8%) and Slovenia (92.9%). In laying hens the most common resistance pattern was the
same as in broilers: ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline, followed by
ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid and tetracycline (Table MULTISALMLAY). As in broilers, most of
the isolates (15/17, 88.2%) with resistance to ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and
tetracycline were S. Infantis.
In turkeys, where 432/726 (59.5%) of isolates were MDR, three serovars accounted for more than
50% of the MDR isolates, namely S. Derby (n=145 MDR isolates), S. Infantis (n=46 MDR isolates) and
S. Kentucky (n=38 MDR isolates). The most common patterns were related to single MSs such as the
most common pattern: ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline and
trimethoprim being reported by Spain (representing 94.7% of total isolates reported with this
pattern). Most (92.6%) of the isolates with this MDR pattern were S. Derby. The second and third
most common patterns were mainly reported also by Spain: ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid and
tetracycline (55.7%), and the MDR pattern ampicillin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid,
sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline and trimethoprim (98.2%). In turkey meat, where 73/226 (32.3%) of
isolates were MDR, the two most common resistance patterns were ampicillin, chloramphenicol,
sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, trimethoprim and ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, tetracycline,
each accounting for 17.8% of the total number of MDR isolates from turkey meat
(Table MULTISALMTURKMEAT).
Salmonella Enteritidis
Information on MDR was sparsely available for S. Enteritidis isolates and only reported from broilers
(16/74,21.6%) of isolates showed MDR and 16/305 (5.2%) of total S. Enteritidis isolates reported
from broilers, with MDR isolates originating from Poland, Portugal and Romania
(Table MULTIENTERBR) and laying hens (4/33,12.1%) of isolates showed MDR and 4/210 (1.9%) of
total S. Enteritidis isolates reported from laying hens, MDR isolates from France and Romania
(Table MULTIENTERLAY). One isolate from laying hens showed resistance to ampicillin,
chloramphenicol, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline and trimethoprim. In broilers, 11/72 (15.3%) of
isolates were resistant to 5 or more antimicrobials, although MDR remains uncommon in S. Enteritidis
isolates. Most of the S. Enteritidis isolates from broilers (70.1%), broiler meat (64.0%) and laying
hens (77.1%) were fully susceptible to the 11 antimicrobials addressed in the analysis. A potentially
invasive clone of S. Enteritidis carrying virulence genes as well as MDR (Amp-Chl-Str-Sul-Tet-Tmp) has

been reported from the African continent and from travel-related cases in the United Kingdom
(Rodriquez et al., 2012). Streptomycin is however no longer included in the monitoring.
Salmonella Typhimurium
MDR S. Typhimurium isolates were reported in turkey meat (9 isolates were MDR out of 9
S. Typhimurium isolates reported) (Table MULTITYPHITURKMEAT), broilers (27 isolates were MDR out
of 87 S. Typhimurium isolates reported, 31.0%) (Table MULTITYPHIBR), laying hens (11 isolates were
MDR out of 64 S. Typhimurium isolates reported, 17.2%) (Table MULTITYPHILAY) and fattening
turkeys (9 isolates were MDR out of 21 S. Typhimurium isolates reported, 42.9%)
(Table MULTITYPHITURK). A wide range of different MDR patterns were reported in all sources. The
most frequent MDR pattern was resistance to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline in most
sources. However, penta-, hexa- and hepta-valent resistance were reported in few isolate from
broilers and one from fattening turkeys. Resistance to cefotaxime/ceftazidime was reported with only
one isolate from broilers but was absent in all other sources. Ciprofloxacin resistance was not reported
in S. Typhimurium MDR isolates form laying hens.
Monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium

The MDR patterns for monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates were reported from broilers (23 isolates
were MDR out of 34 isolates reported, 67.6%) (Table MULTIMONTYPHIBR) and laying hens (3 isolates
were MDR out of 8 isolates reported, 37.5%) (Table MULTIMONTYPHIBR). The most frequent core
pattern of resistance observed was resistance to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline
occurring in all MDR isolates from broilers laying hens.
Salmonella Kentucky
The patterns of MDR for S. Kentucky isolates were reported from meat from broilers (5 isolates were
MDR out of 33 isolates reported, 15.2%) (Table MULTIKENBRMEAT), meat from turkeys (4 isolates
were MDR out of 7 isolates reported, 57.1%) (Table MULTIKENTUCKYTURKMEAT), broilers (70
isolates were MDR out of 115 isolates reported, 60.9%) (Table MULTIKENTBR), laying hens (11
isolates were MDR out of 44 isolates reported, 25.0%) (Table MULTIKENTLAY) and fattening turkeys
(38 isolates were MDR out of 55 isolates reported, 69.1%) (Table MULTIKENTURK). About 55.7% of
the isolates from broilers had the core pattern of pentavalent resistance to ampicillin,
ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, gentamicin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline reported by the Cyprus, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Spain. This core pentavalent resistance pattern was most
observed also in isolates in laying hens, fattening turkeys and turkey and broiler meat.
Salmonella Infantis
MDR patterns for S. Infantis were available from broiler meat (118 isolates were MDR out of 147
isolates reported, 80.3%) (Table MULTIINFANBRMEAT), turkey meat (7 isolates were MDR out of 9
isolates reported, 77.8%) (Table MULTIINFANBRMEAT), broilers (649 isolates were MDR out of 796
isolates reported, 81.5%) (Table MULTIINFANBR), laying hens (18 isolates were MDR out of 64
isolates reported, 28.1%) (Table MULTIINFANLAY) and fattening turkeys (46 isolates were MDR out of
53 isolates reported, 86.8%) (Table MULTIINFANTURK). In fattening turkeys most of the isolates
originated from Hungary (90.2%). S. Infantis displayed a wide range of different MDR patterns;
however, almost all MDR patterns (> 97%) included resistance to ciprofloxacin and/or nalidixic acid,
as well as resistance to sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline. Resistance to ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid,
sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline was the most common pattern in S. Infantis from broiler meat
(74.6%), broilers (54.6%), laying hens (78.9%) and fattening turkeys (43.5%). All other
multiresistant S. Infantis isolates having resistance to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime originated from
Cyprus (16.7%, n=3) and Italy broilers (60.0%, n=18).

3.1.3. Discussion
Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella in humans

Although there has been a significant decline in human salmonellosis cases from 2007 to 2014,
salmonellosis continues to be the second most commonly reported zoonotic disease in humans in the
EU, exceeded only by campylobacteriosis. The decline in incidence seems to be mainly attributed to
the reduction in the prevalence of Salmonella in flocks of laying hens and also in broilers and turkeys,
probably as a result of the national control and monitoring programmes implemented by the MSs in
the corresponding production sectors (EFSA and ECDC, 2015).
In 2014, information on AMR in Salmonella isolates from human cases was reported by 21 MSs and
one non-MS. Resistance in human Salmonella isolates was high to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and
tetracycline, and moderate to high for nalidixic acid. These antimicrobials or other agents of the same
class are used commonly for treating infections in animals and humans (although not usually for
treating Salmonella infections in humans). For ampicillin, sulfonamides and tetracyclines, the
resistance observed was largely due to the high to extremely high resistance levels observed among
S. Typhimurium and particularly monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates. This pattern of resistance to all
three of these agents (ASuT) is commonly observed among monophasic S. Typhimurium definitive
phage type 193/120 strains (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010b).
Because of the compulsory AST of isolates from poultry and poultry products in 2014, the human data
analysis also focused on the serovars that are the most frequent and/or have the highest resistance
levels among serovars found in poultry, besides S. Typhimurium and monophasic S. Typhimurium.
Among these, human S. Kentucky isolates exhibited very high to extremely high resistance levels to
ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline, which is
consistent with the dissemination of the ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Kentucky ST198 strain in Europe,
and elsewhere, since 2010 (Le Hello et al., 2013). Resistance to nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin was
commonly associated with S. Infantis and S. Enteritidis. Resistance to third-generation cephalosporins
was also more common in S. Infantis and particularly high levels were observed in Italy which is due
to the circulation of a multiresistant and ESBL-producing (CTX-M type) clone of S. Infantis in Italy (Ida
Luzzi, Istituto Superiore di Sanit, personal communication, August 2015). Based on the animal and
food data, this clone also seems to prevail in Italian broilers. Resistance to colistin was commonly
detected in S. Enteritidis both among human and poultry isolates. It has been suggested that elevated
resistance to colistin is an intrinsic trait among some serovars, including S. Enteritidis (Agers et al,
2012). As the CBP is at the same concentration as the ECOFF applied in the analysis, the observed
colistin resistance is of concern since the last-resort drug might no longer be effective for treating
severe human infections with the most common Salmonella serovar.
For the 2014 report, ECDC and EFSA agreed to include the same antimicrobial classes in the MDR
analysis for better comparison between the two sectors. For the human data analysis, this meant
including also carbapenems which had not been possible in 2013 when too few countries reported on
this class. Among the ten MSs reporting on all nine antimicrobial classes in 2014, slightly more than
half of the human isolates were susceptible to all of them. About 30% of the isolates exhibited MDR,
i.e. they were non-susceptible to at least three different antimicrobial classes. Isolates from one
country (France) exhibited much higher MDR levels (> 60%) which could be a bias introduced by
sampling and testing strategies, e.g. an overrepresentation of serovars with high MDR due to targeted
surveillance (e.g. of S. Kentucky), and testing of the full panel only on isolates expressing resistance
to ampicillin. Among separate serovars, MDR was extremely high in S. Kentucky, very high in
monophasic S. Typhimurium and S. Infantis, whereas being low in S. Enteritidis and S. Derby.
Clinical and microbiological co-resistance to the critically important therapeutic antimicrobials
ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime were reported from six and seven countries, respectively, out of the ten
included in the MDR analysis, and represented 0.5% and 0.6% of reported isolates. This was higher
than in 2013, most likely due the lowered CBP for ciprofloxacin as the proportion of cefotaxime
resistance remained the same in both years. MSs are encouraged to monitor for resistance to reserve
agents, such as meropenem, colistin, azithromycin and tigecycline that may need to be considered for
treatment of extremely drug-resistant isolates. This is especially the case because some human
isolates were resistant to a large number or all of the antimicrobial classes routinely reported in 2014.
Whereas 15 countries were reporting data on meropenem in 2014, only two to four countries reported

data on the other last-resort drugs, probably because the EU protocol for harmonised monitoring of
AMR in human Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates lists meropenem among the priority
antimicrobials and the others as optional (ECDC, 2014). In the absence of routine monitoring,
resistance to reserve agents may grow and remain undetected. Resistance to reserve agents that are
not used in food-producing animals may be related to cross-resistance to agents used in food-
producing animals for some agents, or to antimicrobial use in humans or exposure to sources of
Salmonella other than those associated with food-producing animals.
In terms of data quality and comparability, major improvements in harmonising data between
countries and across sectors have been made in the last two reports. In the data collection for the
2013 report, for the first time, countries could report measured values (quantitative AST data as
opposed to interpreted categories) to ECDC, and seven countries were then able to submit Salmonella
data in this way. For 2014, 12 countries were able to provide quantitative AST data, with four
countries changing from qualitative reporting and one country reporting AST data for the first time.
The quantitative data were interpreted based on EUCAST ECOFF values, where available. With respect
to categorical data, the categories of intermediate and resistant were combined in a non-
susceptible group. With this approach, the ECOFF-based category of wild type corresponds closely to
the susceptible category and the ECOFF-based category of non-wild type corresponds closely to the
non-susceptible category. Thus, this approach further improves the comparability of human and non-
human data. For countries submitting categorical data, only four were using other criteria than
EUCAST or did not communicate which criteria they were using. For future reports, EFSA and ECDC
hope that more countries will report measured values. More harmonisation is also needed when it
comes to the selection of isolates for testing and reporting at the EU level, as, in many countries, the
sampling and the antimicrobials tested for a particular selection are not random and represent
different fractions of all isolates identified in a country.
In 2014, some aspects of the reported human data remained difficult to interpret. For some countries,
the reported percentage of isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin was very low whereas the reported
percentage resistant to nalidixic acid was high. Whereas the proportion of isolates resistant to
fluoroquinolones might be expected to be slightly lower compared to quinolones, this difference was
considerable in some countries, and in two countries even as large as 20-fold and more than 100-fold.
Perhaps, some countries using disk diffusion (which applied to the majority of the human laboratories)
had not yet adopted the EUCAST recommendation, issued in early 2014, to screen for pefloxacin
susceptibility instead of ciprofloxacin in order to detect low-level fluoroquinolone resistance. It could
also be that some countries reporting interpreted results had not yet adapted to the new, significantly
lower CBP for ciprofloxacin, which was also introduced in 2014. The EU protocol will be updated on
these two points.
Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella from poultry and meat thereof

In Salmonella isolates from poultry and meat, harmonised isolate-based data were reported by 27 MSs
and one non-MS in 2014. The isolate-based data enable the analysis of MDR patterns, high level of
resistance to ciprofloxacin and co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime, agents critically
important for treating human salmonellosis. The levels of resistance are presented by serovar for the
different animal production types; the division of Gallus gallus into broilers and laying hens is
particularly relevant. The subdivision of resistance data allows for more accurate analysis and as
required by the legislation, all MSs included information on serovars and production type.
In 2014, MSs collected Salmonella isolates for susceptibility testing according to the new harmonised
monitoring plan (Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU). In line with this decision, the
antimicrobial agents included in the test panels were changed; most importantly, testing of resistance
to streptomycin was not required, which had an impact on how MDR patterns were interpreted. The
animal and meat sections in this chapter focus primarily on Salmonella from poultry and poultry meat,
reflecting the monitoring plan for 2014 set out in the Decision.
Antimicrobials such as ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline have been widely used for many
years in veterinary medicine to treat infections in production animals. Generally, moderate to high
levels of resistance to these antimicrobials are reported by MSs from producing animals and meat
products thereof. The highest levels of resistance to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline, as
well as to chloramphenicol, were recorded in Salmonella isolates from fattening turkeys and meat

from turkeys. Considering all reporting MSs, isolates from laying hens displayed the lowest levels of
resistance to these antimicrobials. Levels of resistance were generally higher in S. Enteritidis from
broiler flocks than from laying hen flocks, particularly in the case of resistance to chloramphenicol,
tetracycline and sulfamethoxazole. This may reflect that laying hens are usually less frequently treated
with antimicrobials than broilers, although trimethoprim showed the reverse pattern. In many MSs,
only a limited number of antimicrobial compounds are authorised for the treatment of laying hens and
the relatively higher levels of ciprofloxacin resistance in layers may reflect that this is one of the
compounds available (although it is also available for the treatment of broilers) or may possibly reflect
an association of particular S. Enteritidis phage types which show low-level ciprofloxacin resistance
with laying hens.
Colistin-resistant Salmonella isolates were detected by several MSs originating from broilers, laying
hens and fattening turkeys. Further information is provided in the Summary/Main findings section.
The occurrence of resistance to fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) was in general particularly related to
certain animal species and sources fattening turkeys, broilers, and meat thereof combined with a
clearly defined geographical distribution, including the following countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and
Spain. In the reported data, it is clear that S. Kentucky and S. Infantis were mainly responsible for the
occurrence of fluoroquinolone resistance in the mentioned sources, which is highly suggestive of
clonal expansion (S. Kentucky ST198-X1) in the production of the food animals, especially poultry (Le
Hello et al., 2011, 2013b; Westrell et al., 2014). Although genetic typing of isolates would be required
for definitive confirmation, the predominance of particular MDR or other resistance patterns in isolates
of Infantis and Kentucky as well as published national reports also support clonal expansion.
Third-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones are critically important for the treatment of
human salmonellosis. Co-resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin differed between MSs and was not
detected in isolates from the majority of MSs. In the single MS where it was detected (Spain), co-
resistance to these antimicrobials occurred in a single S. Kentucky isolate from broilers, which showed
high-level resistance to fluoroquinolones.
As in previous years, the reported levels of ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance in isolates from
the different types of meat or animal species between MSs were generally very similar; however,
isolates with resistance to ciprofloxacin, but susceptible to nalidixic acid, were also reported probably
indicating the occurrence of plasmid-mediated qnr genes leading to fluoroquinolone, but not nalidixic
acid, resistance. This was particularly a feature of Salmonella isolates from broilers in Malta, Portugal
and Spain and from turkeys in Hungary and Spain, although it was also present to a lesser extent in
isolates from layers from some MSs.
MDR, defined as resistance to three or more of eleven antimicrobial classes, was generally higher in
Salmonella spp. from broilers (46.3% of isolates) and turkeys (59.5% of isolates) than in layers (11%
of isolates). In broilers, the proportion of all isolates showing MDR, was greatly influenced by the
occurrence of MDR S. Infantis, this serovar accounting for approximately 31% of the MDR isolates in
broilers. Particular MDR patterns were associated with S. Infantis and because this serovar was
prevalent in many countries, these patterns greatly influenced the overall resistance figures. This is
exemplified by resistance to ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline which
occurred as an MDR pattern without additional resistances in 355/762 (46.5%) of S. Infantis isolates;
Infantis represented 762/2,122 (35.9%) of all Salmonella isolates examined from broilers. Generally,
the resistance levels varied among serovars that may exhibit particular MDR patterns, so the relative
contribution of different serovars in different production types and between MSs should be kept in
mind when comparing the situation between the reporting countries.
The analysis of MDR resistance patterns also highlighted multiresistant strains of Salmonella occurring
in several MSs. High-level ciprofloxacin resistance (MIC > 4) was observed in multiresistant
S. Kentucky isolates from broilers, laying hens and turkeys, and in S. Infantis from broilers. It was
displayed by much lower numbers of other serovars (Enteritidis, Bonariensis, Kottbus) and was also
detected in S. Kentucky from broiler and turkey meat, and in S. Infantis from broiler meat. The MSs
reporting high levels of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Kentucky and S. Infantis isolates in 2014 also
reported similar findings in 2013 (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Spain); however, more
MSs provided in 2014 isolate data suitable for the analysis of high-level ciprofloxacin resistance,
therefore more MSs found isolates with high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin. High-level ciprofloxacin

resistance is usually related to chromosomal mutations and therefore provides strong evidence for
clonal expansion of particular strains of Salmonella.
There were no Salmonella isolates recovered from poultry in 2014 which were resistant to
carbapenems, a class of antimicrobials which is not used therapeutically in food-producing animals,
but which is reserved for use in man. Supplementary testing of those Salmonella isolates which were
resistant to the indicator cephalosporins (cefotaxime and ceftazidime) with a further panel of
antimicrobials revealed the presence of isolates with ESBL, AmpC and combined ESBL plus AmpC
phenotypes. Most MSs reported low numbers of isolates with these phenotypes, though in two MSs,
two serovars (Infantis with an ESBL phenotype in Italy; Heidelberg with an ampC phenotype in the
Netherlands) contributed to moderate or high levels of cephalosporin resistance in Salmonella from
broilers. The occurrence of S. Infantis with an ESBL phenotype and S. Heidelberg with an AmpC
phenotype in restricted geographical regions of Europe suggests clonal expansion and spread within
broilers in these regions.
Within a given MS, any attempt to relate AMR in human Salmonella isolates to AMR in isolates from
food and food-producing animals in that MS is complicated, because much of the food consumed in an
MS may have originated in other MSs or in third countries. Salmonella infections can also be
associated with foreign travel, other types of animal contact (such as pet reptiles) or the environment.
Some human infections can also occur through spread between affected human patients. To improve
investigation of these relationships, isolates from cases notified as having been acquired during travel
outside of the reporting country were excluded from the analysis, except with respect to the analysis
of resistance in different geographical regions. The comparison would further improve if a distinction
could be made between food isolates from domestically produced animals and those from other
countries, although this is not currently possible.
Tigecycline resistance in Salmonella spp.

Microbiological resistance to tigecycline was reported in 9.3% of 2,293 Salmonella spp. from broilers,
0.6% of 872 isolates from laying hens and 8% of 757 isolates from turkeys. There was a marked
association of tigecycline microbiological resistance with S. Infantis in poultry and most
microbiologically resistant strains had MICs just above the ECOFF at 2 or 4 mg /l. The maximal MIC of
8 mg/l was observed in only two isolates (S. Infantis from layers and S. Tennessee from broilers).
Resistance to tigecycline in Salmonella is thought to be mediated by increased activity of efflux
pumps, principally through modifications to the expression of efflux pump regulatory genes and this
may explain the distribution of MICs which was obtained. However, determining the susceptibility of
tigecycline is not entirely straightforward as the method can be affected by oxidation of the test
reagents and the results are being further investigated by the EU-RL for AMR in case methodological
issues have influenced the monitoring results in 2014.
Figure 52: Tigecycline resistance in Salmonella spp.

3.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter
Human infections with Campylobacter

Campylobacter causes many human cases of gastroenteritis and has been the most frequently
reported cause of human food-borne zoonoses in the EU since 2004 (EFSA and ECDC, 2015). In 2014,
241,170 laboratory-confirmed cases of campylobacteriosis were reported in the EU/EEA. C. jejuni and
C. coli accounted for 99.7% of cases with species information. Patients may experience mild to severe
illness. Symptoms may include (bloody) diarrhoea, abdominal pain, fever, headache and nausea. The
mean duration of illness is 2 to 5 days but can be up to 10 days. The majority of campylobacteriosis
enteric infections are self-limiting; however, infection can be associated with serious complications.
Campylobacteriosis is an important trigger for autoimmune inflammatory conditions of the central
nervous system, heart and joints, which can result in prolonged and debilitating illness (e.g. Guillain
Barr syndrome, acute transverse myelitis and reactive arthritis). Blood stream infection with
Campylobacter spp. is very rare, except for infections with C. fetus.
Antimicrobial treatment is usually not required, but effective treatment may shorten the duration of
illness. Resistance to antimicrobials in Campylobacter is of concern because of the large number of
human infections and the fact that some cases require treatment. Treatment of enteric infections in
humans may involve administration of macrolides, such as erythromycin or fluoroquinolones (e.g.
ciprofloxacin), as the first- and second-choice drugs (ECDC et al., 2009). With ciprofloxacin, resistance
may develop rapidly.
In 2014, 13 MSs and Norway provided data on human Campylobacter isolates for 2014. Eight
countries (Austria, Estonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia) reported
quantitative isolate-based AST results as measured values of either inhibition zone diameters or MICs.
Six countries reported case-based AST results interpreted as susceptible (S), intermediate (I) or
resistant (R) according to the CBPs applied. Countries reporting resistance in Campylobacter from
humans in 2014 are presented in Tables CAMPJEOVERVIEW and CAMPCOOVERVIEW. The report only
addressed data on C. jejuni and C. coli for comparison with AST data on food-producing animals and
food, and as these Campylobacter species are the most commonly identified cause of
campylobacteriosis in humans in the EU. Quantitative isolate-based data on AMR in Campylobacter
isolates from poultry and meat derived thereof were reported by 26 MSs and two non-MSs Iceland
and Switzerland. AST was carried out for C. jejuni and C. coli only; all other Campylobacter species
were excluded from the monitoring programme of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter (Tables
CAMPJEOVERVIEW and CAMPCOOVERVIEW).
3.2.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from humans

Since resistance levels differ substantially between C. jejuni and C. coli, data are reported separately
for the two species. Results are presented for the three first-priority antimicrobials currently included
in the harmonised panel of antimicrobials to be tested with Campylobacter isolates from humans
(ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and tetracycline) and for two optional agents (co-amoxiclav and
gentamicin) (ECDC, 2014). The MDR analysis included the three priority antimicrobials and
gentamicin, as the latter will be included in the priority panel, when ECOFF values are available for
disc diffusion in addition to dilution. The number of antimicrobials tested per isolate varied by country:
all countries except one tested all three priority antimicrobials, seven also tested gentamicin and three
tested co-amoxiclav.
Interpretation of data must take account of the wide variation in the numbers of Campylobacter
isolates reported by MSs. Whereas this may in part be related to true differences in the incidence of
campylobacteriosis, it is also likely to be greatly influenced by practices related to capture of isolates
and/or data from primary clinical laboratories.

Methods and interpretive criteria used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of

Campylobacter isolates from humans
The method of testing for antimicrobial susceptibility and the selection of the isolates to be tested
varied between countries. The methods and interpretive criteria used for antimicrobial susceptibility
testing of Campylobacter are presented in Table 4, Material and methods chapter. Quantitative data
were interpreted by ECDC based on the EUCAST epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) values, where
available. In the absence of ECOFFs, CBPs from the French Society for Microbiology (CA-SFM) were
applied. For the qualitative SIR data, the intermediate and resistant results were combined into a
non-susceptible category. For the four antimicrobials reported for both human and animal/food
isolates, the commonly used interpretive criteria were aligned (Figure 53). For this purpose,
susceptible isolates were aligned with wild-type isolates based on ECOFFS, and non-susceptible
isolates (intermediate and resistant) were aligned with non-wild-type isolates. This resulted in total
concordance across interpretive categories, except for the EUCAST CBP for C. jejuni for tetracyclines,
which is one doubling dilution higher than the EUCAST ECOFF.
Figure 53: Comparison of CBPs and ECOFFs used to interpret MIC data reported for
Campylobacter spp. from humans, animals or food
Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni from humans
Resistance levels in Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans

As in previous years, C. jejuni was the most common Campylobacter species identified in 2014, with
102,663 cases reported in the EU/EEA. AST data were reported for 12.3% of these cases in 2014 by
13 MSs and Norway. A very high proportion (60.2%) of human isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin
in 2014 (13 MSs, Table 22) with extremely high proportions observed in several countries, most
noticeably in Portugal (97.9%), followed by Lithuania (87.4%) and Spain (87.4%). The lowest
proportion of isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin was reported by Norway (29.7%). Similar observations
were made regarding the levels of resistance to tetracyclines which were high overall (46.4%) with
the highest proportion of resistance reported by Spain (81.3%) and Portugal (77.1%). The level of
resistance to erythromycin was overall relatively low, at 1.5%, but varied between countries. The
highest proportion of erythromycin-resistant isolates was reported by Malta (27.5%). This is
substantially higher than the level of resistance reported by any other country, although Italy (13.0%)
also reported a higher level than other countries. Resistance to gentamicin was generally very low
(0.4%) but substantially higher in Slovakia, although only a low number of isolates (n=23) had been
tested.

Table 22: Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni from humans per country in 2014
Country Ciprofloxacin Co-amoxiclav Erythromycin Gentamicin Tetracyclines

N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res
Austria(a) 357 69.7 357 0 357 0.3 357 31.1
Estonia(a) 31 80.6 31 0 31 64.5
France 4,627 55.4 4624 1.0 4,623 0.3 4,531 0.2 4,264 54.2
Italy(a) 69 81.2 69 13.0 69 69.6
Lithuania 198 87.4 275 1.5 80 51.3
Luxembourg(a) 761 64.5 340 8.8 762 0.3 762 47.9
Malta 182 69.8 182 27.5
Netherlands 3,033 59.8 2,612 1.9 1,957 43.2
Portugal(a) 96 97.9 96 5.2 96 0.0 96 77.1
Romania(a) 16 50.0 16 0 16 0 16 43.8
Slovakia 1,211 50.6 202 1.5 1,278 1.1 23 39.1 1,258 25.6
Slovenia(a) 1,028 69.5 1,026 1.5 1,026 36.2
Spain 246 87.4 246 3.3 246 2.0 246 81.3
Total (MSs 13) 11,855 60.2 5,166 1.5 11,573 1.5 5,269 0.4 10,162 46.4
Norway(a) 145 29.7 145 3.4 145 2.8 145 20.0
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates (either non-wild type by ECOFFs or clinically non-
susceptible by combining resistant and intermediate categories); : no data reported.
MDR among Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans

Five MSs and Norway tested at least ten isolates of C. jejuni for resistance to the four antimicrobial
classes included in the MDR analysis. Overall, 20.5% of human C. jejuni isolates in the five reporting
MSs were susceptible to all four antimicrobial classes (5 MSs, Table COMCAMPJEHUM). Particularly low
levels of susceptibility were reported from Portugal (1.0%) and Spain (8.5%) (Figure 54). MDR was,
on average, very low in the five MSs (0.4%) with the highest MDR observed in Portugal (3.1%) and
Spain (2.8%). A very low proportion of isolates (0.3%) in the five MSs exhibited microbiological as
well as clinical resistance to both ciprofloxacin and erythromycin, but slightly higher levels were
observed in Portugal, Norway and Spain. Spain reported two isolates resistant to all four antimicrobial
classes.
Figure 54: Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans completely
susceptible or resistant to one to four antimicrobial classes in 2014
Spatial distribution of resistance among Campylobacter jejuni isolates from human cases
The spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance in C. jejuni isolates from human cases (Figure 55)
shows that the highest proportion of resistance was reported by southern European and Baltic
countries, whereas northern and central European countries reported lower levels. Erythromycin
resistance levels were higher in the southern European countries and in Norway (Figure 56).

Figure 55: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from human
cases in reporting countries in 2014
Figure 56: Spatial distribution of erythromycin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from human

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter coli from humans
Resistance levels in Campylobacter coli isolates from humans

C. coli was the second most common Campylobacter species identified in 2014, with 9,098 cases
reported in the EU/EEA. AST data were reported for 17.4% of these cases in 2014 by 13 MSs and
Norway. Very high proportions of resistance were observed for ciprofloxacin (68.9%) and tetracyclines
(53.8%), with extremely high proportions (> 70%) resistant to ciprofloxacin in Portugal, Spain,
Lithuania, Malta, Austria and Slovenia (13 MSs, Table 23). Proportions of isolates resistant to
erythromycin and gentamicin were also markedly higher in C. coli than in C. jejuni (14.6% vs. 1.5%
and 1.7% vs 0.4%, respectively). Portugal, Spain and Malta reported the highest levels of resistance
to erythromycin (57.6%, 44.8% and 42.5%, respectively).
Table 23: Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter coli from humans per country in 2014
Country Ciprofloxacin Co-amoxiclav Erythromycin Gentamicin Tetracyclines

Austria(a) 44 84.1 44 4.5 44 0 44 68.2
Estonia(a) 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA
France 812 63.1 811 0.9 812 10.1 800 0.8 753 49.0
Italy(a) 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA
Lithuania 16 87.4 21 4.8 4 NA
Luxembourg(a) 73 69.9 39 15.4 73 9.6 73 69.9
Malta 80 86.3 80 42.5 2 NA 3 NA
Netherlands 203 65.5 167 17.4 - - 129 62.0
Portugal(a) 33 97.0 33 57.6 33 3.0 33 87.9
Romania(a) 7 NA 7 NA 7 NA 7 NA
Slovakia 70 61.4 28 3.6 85 5.9 - - 80 31.3
Slovenia(a) 87 80.5 87 4.6 - - 87 46.0
Spain 67 97.0 67 44.8 67 13.4 67 92.5
Total (MSs 13) 1,500 68.9 878 1.6 1,484 14.6 953 1.7 1,288 53.8
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates (either non-wild type by ECOFFs or clinically non-
susceptible by combining resistant and intermediate categories); : no data reported; NA: not applicable (if fewer than 10
isolates were tested, the percentage of resistance was not calculated).
MDR among Campylobacter coli isolates from humans

Overall, 15.0% of the human C. coli isolates were susceptible to all four antimicrobial classes, with no
susceptible isolates reported by Portugal and Spain (Figure 57, Table COMCAMPCOHUM).The level of
MDR was overall moderate (10.4%) but ranged from 4.5% to 54.5% between countries, with a
country average of 28.0%. The overall level of microbiological and clinical co-resistance to
ciprofloxacin and erythromycin was 13.6% and 13.5%, respectively. Spain reported seven isolates and
France and Portugal one isolate each, resistant to all four antimicrobial classes (Figure 57).
Figure 57: Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates from humans completely susceptible
or resistant to one to four antimicrobial classes in 2014

3.2.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from animals and food

The countries reporting Campylobacter resistance from various animal and food sampling origins in
2014 are presented in Table CAMPCOOVERVIEW and CAMPJEOVERVIEW. Antimicrobials selected by
the different MSs, and non-MSs, for susceptibility testing of C. jejuni and C. coli are shown in
presented in Material and methods section.
Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from meat
Representative sampling and monitoring

In the reporting MSs, data on antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from meat from
Gallus gallus derived from active monitoring/surveillance programmes or surveys (Denmark) were
based mainly on the random collection of broiler meat samples obtained at slaughterhouses,
processing plants or retail outlets. Data on antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from
meat from turkeys were submitted by Austria, Germany and Portugal and from meat from pigs by
Belgium and Portugal. Portugal reported data on antimicrobial resistance in C. jejuni isolates from
meat from bovine animals.
Resistance levels among C. jejuni and C. coli isolates from meat from broilers
For 2014, four MSs provided antimicrobial resistance data on C. jejuni and C. coli isolates from broiler
meat (Table 24). Although resistance is typically higher among C. coli than C. jejuni isolates, common
features in the levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid and
tetracyclines can be observed in the two Campylobacter species monitored. Resistance to tetracyclines
and nalidixic acid generally ranged from high to extremely high levels, whereas resistance to
gentamicin varied less among reporting MSs and was either undetected or recorded at very low level
(0.6%). For those antimicrobials of particular importance in treating human Campylobacter infections,
resistance to ciprofloxacin was in general very high to extremely high in reporting MSs and, as
expected, closely paralleled the results obtained for nalidixic acid, whereas resistance to erythromycin
was much lower considering all reporting MSs. In contrast to the other two reporting MSs, Denmark
recorded a moderate resistance level (15.4%) to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in C. jejuni, although
a low number of isolates was tested. The recorded levels of resistance to erythromycin considering
C. jejuni and C. coli were contrasting, with higher resistance observed in C. coli.
MDR among C. jejuni and C. coli isolates from meat from broilers
The isolate-based resistance data on 10 or more isolates of C. jejuni and C. coli were not available
from broiler meat; the corresponding MDR analysis is not presented in this report.

Table 24: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni from meat in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
Country Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Streptomycin Tetracycline

N % N % N % N % N % N %
Campylobacter jejuni
Meat from broilers
Austria 102 71.6 102 0 102 0 102 67.6 102 0 102 26.5
Denmark 26 15.4 26 0 26 0 26 15.4 26 0 26 11.5
Germany 180 69.4 180 3.3 180 0.6 180 65 180 1.1 180 46.1
Total (MSs 3) 308 65.6 308 1.9 308 0.3 308 61.7 308 0.6 308 36.7
Meat from turkeys
Austria 13 92.3 13 0 13 0 13 84.6 13 0 13 38.5
Germany 61 60.7 61 0 61 0 61 54.1 61 1.6 61 52.5
Total (MSs 2) 74 66.2 74 0 74 0 74 59.5 74 1.4 74 50.0
Campylobacter coli
Meat from broilers
Austria 45 88.9 45 11.1 45 0 45 88.9 45 11.1 45 60.0
Germany 72 80.6 72 15.3 72 0 72 79.2 72 2.8 72 79.2
Portugal 17 100 17 41.2 17 0 17 100 17 5.9 17 88.2
Total (MSs 3) 134 85.8 134 17.2 134 0 134 85.1 134 6.0 134 73.9
Meat from turkeys
Germany 37 86.5 37 29.7 37 0 37 83.8 37 13.5 37 70.3
ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off values; N: number of isolates tested; %: percentage of resistant isolates per category of susceptibility or multiple resistance; MSs: Member States.

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from broilers
Representative monitoring
In 2014, the implementation of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU, which sets out the
requirements for monitoring resistance in C. jejuni in broilers, resulted in comprehensive monitoring in
25 MSs and one non-MS (Iceland) on C. jejuni and C. coli isolates from broilers (Table 25). On a
voluntary basis, eight MSs also monitored resistance in C. coli in broilers. Further information on the
representative sampling of carcases of healthy broilers at the slaughterhouse may be found in the
Material and methods section.
Resistance levels among C. jejuni and C. coli isolates from broilers

As seen in previous years, the occurrence of resistance to the antimicrobials studied varied greatly
between the reporting countries in 2014.
Considering C. jejuni, in general, the overall observed levels of resistance to tetracyclines (overall
54.4%), nalidixic acid (overall 65.1%) and ciprofloxacin (overall 69.8%) were high to extremely high,
whereas those of resistance to streptomycin (overall 6.9%) and erythromycin (overall 5.9%) were low
to moderate. Exceptions to this general pattern of resistance to these substances were observed for
isolates from Sweden and Iceland which reported the lowest occurrence of resistance (at low levels),
and those from Latvia, which recorded resistance to nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin in all the isolates
tested. Another exception to this general pattern of resistance was observed for isolates from
Denmark, which recorded moderate levels of resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid (both at 17.6%)
and tetracycline (12.1%) and for isolates from Finland, which reported moderate resistance to
tetracyclines (17.0%). In contrast, gentamicin resistance was either undetected or reported at low
levels (overall 0.9%).
The results in C. coli isolates from broilers were similar, with high to extremely high levels of
resistance to ciprofloxacin (overall 74.3%), nalidixic acid (overall 69.5%) and tetracyclines (overall
59.6%) for most MSs, with the exception of Croatia (2.2%). Streptomycin overall resistance was
generally higher in C. coli (22.0%), than in C. jejuni (6.9%) from broilers at the MS level. Overall
resistance to erythromycin was higher in C. coli (14.5%) than in C. jejuni (5.9%) for all reporting MSs
and at the MS level for most MSs, with the exception of three central and south-eastern European
countries, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia.
Comparison of resistance in broilers and meat from broilers

Considering individual MSs, the levels of ciprofloxacin and tetracycline resistance in C. coli and
C. jejuni isolates from meat from broilers tended to parallel the values obtained for isolates from
broilers, usually at slightly lower levels. Generally, resistance levels to antimicrobials were higher in
C. coli than in C. jejuni both for broilers and for meat from broilers.

Table 25: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter from broilers in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
Country Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Streptomycin Tetracycline

N % N % N % N % N % N %
Austria 193 75.1 193 0 193 0 193 67.9 193 2.1 193 23.8
Belgium 92 60.9 92 1.1 92 0 92 60.9 92 0 92 52.2
Bulgaria 110 87.3 110 39.1 110 4.5 110 85.5 110 27.3 110 69.1
Croatia 65 26.2 65 0 65 4.6 65 26.2 65 0 65 13.8
Cyprus 69 72.5 69 11.6 69 2.9 69 71.0 69 21.7 69 73.9
Czech Republic 47 78.7 47 4.3 47 0 47 61.7 47 10.6 47 36.2
Denmark 165 17.6 165 0.6 165 0 165 17.6 165 4.8 165 12.1
Finland 88 25.0 88 0 88 0 88 25.0 88 0 88 17.0
France 175 61.1 175 0 175 0 175 59.4 175 0.6 175 72.6
Germany 195 66.7 195 3.6 195 0 195 55.9 195 0 195 51.3
Greece 80 91.3 80 0 80 0 80 77.5 80 21.3 80 71.3
Hungary 150 93.3 150 0 150 0 150 91.3 150 1.3 150 58.0
Ireland 99 27.3 99 1.0 99 0 99 27.3 99 5.1 99 28.3
Italy 261 90.0 261 3.1 261 0.8 261 75.5 261 3.4 261 78.9
Latvia 92 100 92 1.1 92 3.3 92 100 92 1.1 92 23.9
Lithuania 37 89.2 37 2.7 37 0 37 89.2 37 13.5 37 59.5
Netherlands 98 64.3 98 0 98 0 98 61.2 98 0 98 50.0
Poland 179 94.4 179 0.6 179 0.6 179 83.8 179 20.7 179 73.7
Portugal 240 95.4 240 11.7 240 0 240 96.3 240 1.7 240 84.6
Romania 447 76.5 447 20.4 447 3.4 447 71.6 447 17.4 447 62.0
Slovakia 11 72.7 11 18.2 11 0 11 63.6 11 9.1 11 27.3
Slovenia 77 81.8 77 0 77 0 77 77.9 77 5.2 77 51.9
Spain 80 95.0 80 0 80 0 80 78.8 80 3.8 80 87.5
Sweden 102 3.9 102 0 102 0 102 7.8 102 1.0 102 1.0
United Kingdom 165 43.6 165 0 165 0 165 44.2 165 0 165 58.8
Total (MSs 25) 3,317 69.8 3,317 5.9 3,317 0.9 3,317 65.1 3,317 6.9 3,317 54.4
Iceland 28 3.6 28 0 28 0 28 3.6 28 0 28 0
Campylobacter coli
Croatia 93 10.8 93 0 93 2.2 93 10.8 93 4.3 93 2.2
Czech Republic 52 86.5 52 0 52 0 52 50.0 52 28.8 52 51.9
Germany 111 82.9 111 23.4 111 0 111 80.2 111 12.6 111 82.0
Netherlands 39 51.3 39 2.6 39 0 39 51.3 39 12.8 39 59.0
Romania 316 82.3 316 16.1 316 3.8 316 78.8 316 21.2 316 60.4
Slovakia 36 91.7 36 2.8 36 0 36 91.7 36 19.4 36 44.4
Slovenia 30 83.3 30 3.3 30 0 30 83.3 30 30.0 30 63.3
Spain 90 94.4 90 34.4 90 6.7 90 90.0 90 53.3 90 97.8
Total (MSs 8) 767 74.3 767 14.5 767 2.6 767 69.5 767 22.0 767 59.6

Temporal trends in resistance among Campylobacter jejuni isolates from broilers

Eleven MSs and one non-MS provided resistance data on 5 years or more to be included in the trend
analysis of antimicrobial resistance. The trends observed in C. jejuni from broilers over the 20082014
period (Figure 58) show, for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance, statistically significant
increases in Austria, Finland, France, Hungary, Spain and Switzerland, although, in both Austria and
Spain, this increase seems to have levelled off since 2012, whereas, in Finland, the increase has
started to take off only over the last 2 years. Although resistance to erythromycin in C. jejuni
remained relatively stable at low levels over the study period, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and
Spain registered significantly decreasing resistance, whereas, conversely, Switzerland recorded a
slightly increasing resistance. In Switzerland, significant increases in resistance to both
ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid and erythromycin were observed over the period, whereas, in the
Netherlands, both trends in resistance to the same substances were decreasing over the period.
Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland

100
75
50
25
0
France Germany Hungary Netherlands
100
75
50
25
0
Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland
100
75
50
25
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Year
AMR CIP ERY NAL
MS: Member State.

Note:A statistically significant increasing trend over 5 or more years, as tested by a logistic regression model (p 0.05), was
observed for both ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Austria (), Finland (), France (), Hungary(), Spain () and Switzerland
(). A statistically significant decreasing trend over five or more years for erythromycin was observed in France (),
Hungary (), the Netherlands () and Spain () and for ciprofloxacin in the Netherlands ().
Figure 58: Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and nalidixic acid resistance in Campylobacter jejuni
from broilers in MSs, 20082014

Austria France Hungary

100
75
50
25
Netherlands Spain Switzerland

100
75
50
25
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Year
AMR CIP ERY NAL
MS: Member State.

Note: A statistically significant trend over 5 or more years, as tested by a logistic regression model (p 0.05), was observed for
both ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Austria (), Spain (),Switzerland () and the Netherlands (). A statistically
significant trend over 5 or more years for erythromycin was observed in Spain () and Hungary () and the
Netherlands ().
Figure 59: Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and nalidixic acid resistance in Campylobacter coli
Spatial distribution of resistance among Campylobacter jejuni isolates from broilers

The spatial distributions of ciprofloxacin resistance in C. jejuni isolates from broilers (Figure 60 and
Figure 61) show that the highest levels of resistance to this substance were reported in eastern and
southern Europe, whereas northern European countries reported lower resistance levels. Although
erythromycin resistance was generally registered at low to very low levels across Europe, much higher
resistance was observed in south-eastern Europe.

Figure 60: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from broilers
of Gallus gallus in reporting countries in 2014
Figure 61: Spatial distribution of erythromycin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from broilers
of Gallus gallus in reporting countries in 2014

Multidrug resistance among Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates from broilers
A large variation in the levels of complete susceptibility to the common set of antimicrobials for
Campylobacter (four antimicrobials) was observed among the reporting countries. Complete
susceptibility was generally found in more than 10.0% of the C. jejuni isolates tested in the reporting
MSs, and reached up to 91.2% in Sweden and 96.4% in Iceland, whereas in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain, the proportion of fully susceptible isolates was much lower
(under 10.0%). The overall complete susceptibility of the C. jejuni isolates was assessed at 23.1%.
MDR in C. jejuni isolates was recorded in 11 countries (out of 26 reporting data), generally at low
levels, although, in Bulgaria, 29.1% of isolates exhibited MDR. The overall MDR of the C. jejuni
isolates was 4.6% (Table COMCAMPJEBR).
The important co-resistance15 for public health to both ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in C. jejuni was
detected in 14 out of 26 reporting countries, with Bulgaria reporting the highest occurrence of co-
resistance in 34.5% of isolates. The overall co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in C. jejuni
was 4.8% for all reporting MSs.
In C. coli, complete susceptibility was generally lower (18.3%) than that observed in C. jejuni and the
occurrence of MDR was greater (18.3%) than that reported in C. jejuni isolates
(Table COMCAMPCOBR). In C. coli isolates, co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin was
detected in six out of nine MSs, with Spain reporting the highest occurrence in 33.3% of isolates;
resulting in an overall co-resistance in C. coli of 18.3%.
The frequency distributions of the numbers of antimicrobials to which individual isolates were resistant
(Figure 62 and Figure 63) showed marked variation between different reporting countries. Although
most of the reporting countries detected resistance to a maximum of two antimicrobial classes in
C. jejuni, Portugal, Romania and Bulgaria reported MDR levels ranging between 10 and nearly 30%
(Figure 62). Conversely, in reporting MSs, C. coli isolates displayed more frequently resistance to three
different classes of antimicrobials (Figure 63), notably in Germany and Spain where the occurrence of
MDR exceeded 20% .
Patterns of multidrug resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates from broilers
Considering C. jejuni, isolate-based data were available from 25 contributing MSs and one non-MS,
which in total reported details of 3,345 isolates. The isolates reported by 14 MSs (44.5% from the
total number of the isolates reported) and Iceland are not addressed in the Table MULTICAMPJEGBR,
as they were not multiresistant. Considering C. coli, analysis of the patterns of resistance to
erythromycin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, tetracyclines and gentamicin was possible for 622 C. coli
isolates from six contributing MSs (Table MULTICAMPCOBR).
Among the 1,842 C. jejuni isolates from broilers from the reporting MSs submitting isolates which
were multiresistant, 8.4% (n=155) exhibited MDR (Table MULTICAMPJEGBR). The most common
pattern of MDR was resistance to ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, erythromycin and tetracyclines, occurring
in 135 out of 155 resistant isolates (and constituting the core resistance pattern in a further 13
isolates, which also showed gentamicin resistance) reported by submitting MSs. The situation
regarding the patterns was similar in C. coli (Table MULTICAMPCOBR), but with a higher percentage
(16.9%) of the isolate displayed MDR of all isolates were available (N=622). Gentamicin resistance, as
a component of MDR patterns in C. coli, was observed only in Romania and Spain. Romania
contributed isolates with a greater range of different resistance patterns than other MSs, although this
may have merely reflected the small isolate sample size from other MSs.
15
The term co-resistance has been defined as two or more resistance genes which are genetically linked, i.e. located adjacent
or close to each other on a mobile genetic element (Chapman, 2003). For brevity, the term is used slightly more loosely in
this report and indicates two or more phenotypic resistances to different classes of antimicrobials, exhibited by the same
bacterial isolate.

Iceland (N=28)
Sweden (N=102)
Denmark (N=165)
Finland (N=88)
Ireland (N=99)
Croatia (N=65)
Belgium (N=92)
Slovakia (N=11)
Netherlands (N=98)
Germany (N=195) sus
Austria (N=193)
res1
France (N=175) res2
Slovenia (N=77) res3
Lithuania (N=37)
res4
Romania (N=447)
Cyprus (N=69)
Italy (N=261)
Hungary (N=150)
Bulgaria (N=110)
Greece (N=80)
Poland (N=179)
Portugal (N=240)
Spain (N=80)
Latvia (N=92)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
resistant to one to four antimicrobials, in broilers in MSs, 2014
Croatia (N=92)
Netherlands (N=39)
Slovenia (N=30)
sus
Romania (N=316) res1
res2
Slovakia (N=36)
res3
res4
Germany (N=111)
Czech Republic
(N=52)
Spain (N=90)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 63: Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates completely susceptible and resistant
to one to four antimicrobials, in broilers in MSs, 2014

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from fattening turkeys
Representative monitoring
For 2014, resistance data on Campylobacter isolates from fattening turkeys (Table 26) were provided
by 10 MSs. Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU lays down that monitoring resistance in
C. jejuni in fattening turkeys is mandatory in those MSs where the production of turkey meat is
greater than 10,000 tonnes slaughtered per year. Three MSs also reported data on C. coli in fattening
turkeys. Further information on the representative sampling of carcases of healthy broilers at the
slaughterhouse may be found in the Material and methods section.
Resistance levels among Campylobacter jejuni isolates from fattening turkeys

In C. jejuni isolates, the range of resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracycline generally
varied from very high to extremely high. The overall resistance to erythromycin and streptomycin was
low and to gentamicin was very low. Resistance levels to antimicrobials were higher in C. coli than in
C. jejuni for fattening turkeys.
Temporal trends in resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from fattening turkeys isolates
None of MSs provided resistance data for C. jejuni from fattening turkeys isolates on 5 years or more
to be included in the statistical analysis.
Spatial distribution of resistance among Campylobacter jejuni isolates from fattening turkeys
The spatial distributions of ciprofloxacin and erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni isolates from
fattening turkeys (Figure 64 and Figure 65) show that the highest levels of resistance to these
substances were reported by southern European countries, whereas northern European countries
reported lower levels.

Table 26: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Gentamicin Nalidixic acid Streptomycin Tetracycline

Country N % N % N % N % N % N %
Austria 73 63.0 73 0 73 0 73 60.3 73 1.4 73 35.6
France 174 55.7 174 0.6 174 0 174 52.3 174 0 174 71.8
Germany 187 62.6 187 2.1 187 0 187 56.1 187 3.2 187 56.7
Hungary 87 95.4 87 0 87 0 87 94.3 87 2.3 87 58.6
Italy 153 86.3 153 5.9 153 0.7 153 64.7 153 3.3 153 78.4
Poland 171 83.0 171 1.8 171 0 171 77.8 171 13.5 171 57.9
Portugal 72 90.3 72 8.3 72 0 72 87.5 72 2.8 72 87.5
Romania 14 85.7 14 0 14 0 14 78.6 14 21.4 14 71.4
Spain 37 89.2 37 10.8 37 0 37 75.7 37 5.4 37 94.6
United Kingdom 153 34.6 153 0.7 153 1.3 153 34 153 1.3 152 64.5
Total (MSs 10) 1,121 69.6 1,121 2.5 1,121 0.3 1,121 63.2 1,121 4.1 1,120 65.4
Campylobacter coli
Germany 235 91.5 235 37 235 0.4 235 87.7 235 14.5 235 88.1
Romania 22 100 22 4.5 22 0 22 100 22 27.3 22 45.5
Spain 133 98.5 133 60.9 133 9.8 133 93.2 133 60.2 133 100
Total (MSs 3) 390 94.4 390 43.3 390 3.6 390 90.3 390 30.8 390 89.7

Figure 64: Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from fattening
turkeys in reporting countries in 2014
Figure 65: Spatial distribution of erythromycin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from
fattening turkeys in reporting countries in 2014

MDR among Campylobacter jejuni isolates from fattening turkeys

Isolates exhibiting MDR accounted for about 8.0% of isolates in Portugal and Spain, whereas, in
France and Poland, they represented less than 1% (Table COMCAMPJETURK). The frequency
distributions (Figure 66) showed an important diversity between the reporting countries; most of them
detected resistance to a maximum of three antimicrobial classes. In addition, a low proportion of
isolates showing co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin was observed in isolates from
Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain and overall the co-resistance equalled 2.4%.
Austria (N=73)
United Kingdom
(N=152)
Germany (N=187)
France (N=174)
sus
Poland (N=171) res1
res2
Italy (N=153)
res3
Romania (N=14) res4
Hungary (N=87)
Portugal (N=72)
Spain (N=37)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
resistant to one to four antimicrobials, in fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014
Patterns of multi-drug resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolates from fattening turkeys

Isolate-based data were available for 1,121 C. jejuni isolates from fattening turkeys, provided by 10
reporting MSs, and of these 794 (70.8%) exhibited MDR (Table MULTICAMPJEGTURK). The most
common MDR pattern observed in fattening turkeys was resistance to ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid,
erythromycin and tetracyclines, occurring in 88.9% of the total number of isolates. The other most
frequent pattern of MDR was resistance to the ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, gentamicin and
tetracyclines. Resistance to ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid and tetracyclines was observed in all of the
multiresistant C. jejuni isolates from fattening turkeys.
3.2.3. Discussion
Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter in humans

Information on antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from human cases of
campylobacteriosis was available from 13 MSs and Norway in 2014. The proportion of human C. jejuni
isolates resistant to erythromycin16 was low overall (> 1.0% to 10.0%), but moderately high (> 10.0
20.0%) in C. coli and high (> 20.050.0%) to very high (> 50.070.0%) in a few reporting countries.
Very high to extremely high (> 70.0%) resistance levels to ciprofloxacin17 were reported in human
Campylobacter isolates from all MSs (although lower in Norway). The level of acquired resistance to
fluoroquinolones in some MSs is so high that this agent can no longer be considered appropriate for
routine empirical treatment of human Campylobacter infection. The highest proportion of ciprofloxacin
resistance in C. jejuni isolates from human cases was reported by southern European and Baltic
16
A representative of the macrolides commonly used in the treatment of human campylobacteriosis.
17
A representative of the fluoroquinolones commonly used in the treatment of human campylobacteriosis.

countries, whereas northern and central European countries reported lower levels. A similar spatial
distribution was observed in isolates from broilers.
Given the corresponding data on isolates of food or animal origin, with particularly high levels of
resistance to fluoroquinolones in broilers, and the understanding that a large proportion of human
campylobacteriosis infections comes from handling, preparing and consuming broiler meat or can be
attributed to the chicken reservoir as a whole (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2010a), this is a compelling
example of the impact of acquired antimicrobial resistance in food and animals on the availability of
effective antimicrobial agents for treating some zoonotic human infections.
Human antimicrobial susceptibility data were available for all antimicrobials included in the MDR
analysis from five MSs and Norway for C. jejuni and from four MSs for C. coli. Overall, only one in five
human C. jejuni isolates and one in six human C. coli isolates were fully susceptible to all tested
antimicrobials. Multi-drug resistance18 was low (0.4%) in C. jejuni but significantly higher (10.4%) in
C. coli with two of four countries reporting MDR in about half of the isolates (though the number of
tested isolates were low). It is important to emphasise that all antimicrobials included in the MDR
analysis since the 2013 report are of clinical relevance. Clinical and microbiological co-resistance to the
critically important antimicrobials ciprofloxacin and erythromycin was low in C. jejuni but moderate in
C. coli with two countries reporting high to very high co-resistance levels to the two primary agents
used for treatment.
In terms of data quality and comparability, major improvements in harmonising data between
countries and across sectors have been made during the last two data collections. In the data
collection for the 2013 report, for the first time, countries could report measured values (quantitative
AST data as opposed to interpreted categories) to ECDC and five countries did so. For 2014, eight
countries provided quantitative AST data, with three countries changing from qualitative reporting,
one country reporting AST data for the first time and one country that did not report, compared to
2013. The quantitative data were interpreted based on EUCAST ECOFF values, where available. With
respect to categorical data, the categories of intermediate and resistant were combined in a non-
susceptible group. With this approach, the ECOFF-based category of wild type corresponds fully to
the susceptible category and the ECOFF-based category of non-wild type corresponds closely to the
non-susceptible category with only one exception for tetracyclines and C. jejuni. Thus, this approach
further improves the comparability of human and non-human data. Of countries submitting categorical
data, all but one was using EUCAST criteria in 2014, a significant stride towards harmonisation
compared with 2012. For future reports, EFSA and ECDC hope that more countries will report
measured values. More harmonisation is also needed when it comes to the sampling of isolates for
testing and reporting at the EU level, as, in many countries, the sampling and the antimicrobials
tested for a particular sample are not random, and represent different fractions of all isolates
identified in a country.
As in the two previous reports, isolates from cases notified as having been acquired while travelling
abroad were excluded from the analysis. The rationale is to facilitate assessment of the relationship
between antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from food and food-producing animals
with antimicrobial resistance in human isolates of Campylobacter spp. As imported or traded food can
constitute a large proportion of the food available in some countries, the relationship between
resistance in food and food-producing animals and in the human population remains complex.
Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter in poultry and meat thereof

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU sets out the requirements for monitoring resistance
in C. jejuni in broilers and fattening turkeys in 2014 and resulted in comprehensive monitoring in
these animal populations. The data relating to the susceptibility of Campylobacter of animal origin
reported by MSs were well harmonised with almost all MSs followed the requirements of the Decision
2013/652/EU and adopting the EFSA guidelines and recommendations. Testing of streptomycin
susceptibility of Campylobacter was voluntary in 2014 and results were not included in the MDR
analysis.
18
MDR is defined as microbiological resistance to at least three of the four different antimicrobial classes tested.

Overall, the levels of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from food in 2014 were higher
than those observed in 2013, although fewer countries reported data in 2014, comparing with 2013.
Because of the marked differences in the levels of resistance observed between some countries,
variation in those countries which report data each year can add to the variability observed in overall
figures for all reporting MSs. The monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in C. jejuni isolates from
broilers was mandatory in 2014 and therefore, the majority of the MSs (25) reported data, compared
with 2013, when only 11 MSs reported data. Levels of resistance in C. jejuni isolates from broilers
were higher than those observed in 2013.
The resistance exhibited by C. jejuni and C. coli isolates to ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines varied very
widely between MSs; in the case of C. jejuni and erythromycin, resistance levels were generally low or
resistance was not detected, whereas, for C. coli, there was again a wide variation in levels or
resistance at the MS level, irrespective of the source of the isolates.
In 2014, ciprofloxacin resistance in C. jejuni isolates from humans was 60.2% for all contributing MSs
(range: 50.647.9%), 69.8% in broilers (range: 3.9100%) and 69.6% in fattening turkeys (range:
34.695.4%). The picture is clearly complex in relation to the sources of human infections because
these may be related to consumption of broilers or turkeys meat (as well as other sources).
International trade also means that consumers may be exposed to meat produced in a number of
different countries. Despite the fact that imported food can contribute to cases of Campylobacter
infection, there were striking parallels in the observed occurrence of resistance to ciprofloxacin,
erythromycin, gentamicin and tetracyclines in C. jejuni isolates from broiler meat, broilers and man in
Austria, and in C. coli isolates from broiler meat and man in Portugal, with similar levels of resistance
to each antimicrobial seen in isolates originating from these different sources within each country.
Austria and Portugal were the only MSs which reported results for Campylobacter isolates from meat
and from human cases of infection. Interestingly, Austria also reported results for C. jejuni from meat
from turkeys and fattening turkeys; isolates from turkeys also closely paralleled the results obtained
for isolates from human cases, whereas ciprofloxacin resistance was rather higher in isolates from
turkey meat. From 2008 to 2014, statistically significant increasing trends in ciprofloxacin and nalidixic
acid resistance in C. jejuni from broilers were observed over 5 or more years in six reporting
countries; this was also observed in C. coli from broilers in two reporting countries.
Regarding resistance to erythromycin in all reporting MSs, erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni from
broilers and fattening turkeys was 5.9% and 0.7%, respectively, whereas, in C. coli resistance was
14.5% and 43.3%, respectively. Erythromycin resistance showed increasing trends in C. coli from
broilers in two countries, whereas erythromycin resistance showed a decreasing trend in C. jejuni
from broilers in four countries. The range of dilutions over which erythromycin is currently tested is
limited and thus, an analysis of resistance at much higher levels was not possible from the current
data. Particular resistance mutations have been associated with high-level erythromycin resistance
and further evaluation of the resistance detected to erythromycin could include such an evaluation.
This might be particularly relevant where resistance is already high, as a possible indication of on-
going high selective pressure. Recently, transferable macrolide resistance has been detected and this
confers high level macrolide resistance (further information is presented in the text box below).
Campylobacter can develop resistance to several of the different antimicrobials in the common test
panel by different mechanisms. Resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in Campylobacter is
usually the result of mutation with or without the additional action of efflux pumps (Piddock et al.,
2003; Ge et al., 2005; Luangtongkum et al., 2009). The efflux pump CmeABC acting alone has also
been shown to confer a degree of resistance to erythromycin, ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines (Ge et
al., 2005). Tetracycline resistance, which can therefore be related to CmeABC, was commonly shown
in a British study to be related to the presence of the tetracycline resistance gene tet(O) (Piddock et
al., 2008), which encodes a protein promoting the release of tetracycline from its binding site (Connell
et al., 2003). The existence of different resistance mechanisms conferring either resistance against the
different individual compounds or resistance against combinations of compounds complicates the
process of trying to infer the genotype from the phenotype and account for the multiple resistance
patterns detected. Isolates of both C. coli and C. jejuni, from animals and humans19, showed
resistance to erythromycin, ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines, raising the possibility that CmeABC may
19
Of the human Campylobacter isolates in 2014, 42 C. jejuni and 48 C. coli isolates were resistant to all these three substances
(data not shown in the section).

have been responsible for or contributed to the observed pattern of resistance. Only 14/3,317 (0.4%)
of C. jejuni, 10/767 (1.3%) of C. coli from broilers and 1/1,121 (0.09%) of C. jejuni from turkeys were
resistant to the combination erythromycin, ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines, without showing nalidixic
acid resistance. CmeABC may also have contributed to the MDR patterns of resistance shown by
isolates which were resistant to erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracyclines, but in
which gyrA mutations were also present conferring both ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance.
The frequently high levels of tetracycline resistance observed in Campylobacter may in part be a
consequence of the presence of the tetracycline resistance gene tet(O) on a transferable plasmid
facilitating dissemination of tetracycline resistance (Wieczorek and Osek, 2013), although tet(O) may
also be chromosomally located in Campylobacter (Piddock et al., 2008). Recently, a transferable
plasmid bearing the macrolide resistance gene erm(B) which confers high-level macrolide resistance,
has been described (Wang et al. 2014). This is an important development, because macrolide
resistance up to this point appears to have been mutational rather than related to transferable,
plasmid-mediated resistance mechanisms in Campylobacter and the occurrence of plasmid-mediated
resistance may allow the much wider dissemination of macrolide resistance than has previously been
observed. AS the erm(B) gene confers erythromycin MICs of 512 mg/L, it may be necessary in the
future to review the dilution range of erythromycin which is tested. In 2014, 75/3,504 (2.1%) C. jejuni
and 71/795 (8.9%) C. coli isolates from broilers, as well as 11/1,123 (1.0%) C. jejuni and 134/390
(34.4%) C. coli isolates from turkeys had MICs of >128mg/L (the highest dilution tested), so if erm(B)
is present in these Campylobacter isolates, from the current monitoring, an upper ceiling can be
placed on the proportion of the total number of isolates which might carry this gene.
Gentamicin resistance in Campylobacter was uncommon in broilers and fattening turkeys isolates, but
where it did occur in multiple-resistant isolates of C. coli and C. jejuni, streptomycin resistance was
usually also observed in previous years. Streptomycin is now tested on a voluntary basis and was not
included in the MDR analysis for 2014. Recently a cluster of aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes has
been reported in C. coli from broiler chickens in China (Qin et al., 2012). An increase in gentamicin
resistance in C. coli from retail chicken the USA has recently been observed (FDA, 2011), with most
isolates originating from the western region of the USA and apparently related to the clonal expansion
of a particular C. coli lineage. The resistance gene aph(2)-Ig was responsible for conferring
gentamicin resistance in these USA retail chicken C. coli isolates and was colocated on a plasmid
which also carried tet(O) resistance (Zhao et al., 2015). Gentamicin resistance was detected in
C. jejuni from broilers and turkeys, and C. coli from broilers in EU MSs in 2014, although whether
clonal expansion of strains is also playing any role in the occurrence of gentamicin resistance in these
Campylobacter isolates is not known.
The molecular basis for the observed patterns of MDR was not reported for the isolates, but molecular
investigation and characterisation of selected isolates, representative of particular patterns of
importance or interest, would assist greatly in determining significance and assessing the potential for
further dissemination through, for example, co-selection or the occurrence of conjugative plasmids.

High-level Erythromycin Resistance in Campylobacter spp.

Macrolides are important compounds for the treatment of human Campylobacter infections. In
broilers, 5.9% of C. jejuni isolates from 25 MSs and 14.5% of C. coli from eight MSs, were
microbiologically resistant to erythromycin. In turkeys, 2.5% of C. jejuni from 10 MSs and 43.3% of
C. coli from three MSs were erythromycin resistant. The occurrence of resistance to erythromycin in
Campylobacter spp. varied markedly between individual MSs.
Resistance to macrolides in Campylobacter spp. has generally been the result of mutations in
ribosomal RNA or ribosomal proteins and these mutations are thought to have incurred fitness costs,
accounting for the low occurrence of erythromycin resistance in many countries (Wang et al., 2014).
Ribosomal mutations can confer high-level erythromycin resistance (Gibreel and Taylor, 2006).
Transferable resistance to erythromycin was first described in Campylobacter isolates from food-
producing animals (including pigs, chickens and ducks) from China in 2014 (Qin et al., 2014, Wang et
al., 2014) and frequently resulted in high level resistance to erythromycin, with MICs recorded at
> 512 mg/L. Resistance is conferred by the rRNA methylase gene erm(B), which can be associated
with either chromosomal multidrug resistance islands or transferable plasmids.
The recent emergence of transferable macrolide resistance in Campylobacter may provide a means
whereby macrolide resistance can spread rapidly in Campylobacter. The situation may be compared to
tetracycline resistance, which is frequently plasmid mediated in Campylobacter, and is frequently
detected in many EU MSs at high levels.
Although transferable erythromycin resistance conferred by erm(B) generally results in high-level
resistance to erythromycin, mutational resistance can also result in high-level resistance to
erythromycin, but may equally result in lower MICs (still above the ECOFF), dependent on the
particular mutations which have occurred. The distribution of erythromycin MICs can be used to
identify the numbers of isolates which have higher levels of resistance to erythromycin. These isolates
may have transferable or mutational erythromycin resistance and fluctuations in the number detected
will provide an early indication of changes in the occurrence of high-level macrolide resistance in
Campylobacter. Genetic investigation of isolates will be necessary for definitive characterisation of the
resistance mechanisms which are present.
Figure 67: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys

3.3. Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli
Rationale for monitoring AMR in indicator E. coli in food-producing animals and food
Commensal E. coli is typically chosen as an indicator of antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative
bacteria, as it is commonly present in animal faeces, may be relevant to human medicine and can
often acquire conjugative plasmids, which are resistance determinants transferred between enteric
bacteria. Commensal E. coli, present in the intestines of food-producing animals, can constitute a
reservoir of resistance genes that can spread horizontally to zoonotic and other bacteria present in the
food chain. The monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in indicator E. coli, isolated from either
randomly selected healthy animals or carcases and meat derived thereof, and chosen to be
representative of the general population, provides valuable data on the resistance occurring in that
population. Determining the occurrence of resistance to antimicrobials in indicator E. coli provides
data useful for investigating the relationship with the selective pressure exerted by the use of
antimicrobials on the intestinal population of bacteria in food-producing animals. Indicator E. coli is
also helpful as representative of the Enterobacteriaceae to monitor the emergence and changes in the
proportion of bacteria producing ESBLs. Since 2014, the mandatory monitoring of AMR in indicator
E. coli from food-producing animals and food thereof has laid down inthe EU legislation.
In total, 27 MSs and two non-MSs reported quantitative MIC data in commensal (indicator) E. coli
isolates from poultry populations in 2014 (Table ESCHEOVERVIEW). Two of these countries provided
MIC data on isolates collected from poultry meat. Antimicrobial susceptibility data were interpreted
using ECOFFs laid down in Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EC to determine organisms
exhibiting reduced susceptibility, i.e. showing microbiological resistance (as opposed to clinical
resistance).20
For further information on antimicrobials tested by the reporting countries and the reported MIC
distributions for E. coli in 2014, please refer to Table 5 and Table 7 in the Material and methods
chapter and to the submitted and validated MS data published on the EFSA website, respectively.
Azithromycin newly inserted in the harmonised set of antimicrobial substances tested

Azithromycin replaced streptomycin in the test panel for Salmonella and E. coli in 2014. A number of
important MDR patterns included resistance to streptomycin and an adverse consequence of this
change is that these patterns can no longer be so readily detected. Azithromycin is a macrolide used
in the treatment of certain human invasive Salmonella infections; it has also been used in the
treatment of some other human enterobacterial infections, for example, Shigella spp. (Boumghar-
Bourtchai et al., 2008). Breakpoints to discriminate between azithromycin resistant and susceptible
populations of E. coli were proposed in a study looking at the epidemiology of mass drug treatment of
human patients with azithromycin to control trachoma infection (Seidman et al., 2014). The same cut-
off value ( 32 mg/L which is equivalent to the cut-off value of > 16 mg/L used in this report) has
been used in epidemiological studies of E. coli in animals (Schmidt et al., 2015). The azithromycin
resistance results may therefore be considered to have relevance in treatment of certain invasive
infections of humans, to detect reservoirs of macrolide resistance genes and in an epidemiological
context. The macrolide efflux pump Mef(B) confers high level resistance to azithromycin and was first
described in E. coli recovered from pigs in the UK (Liu et al., 2009), where it was co-located on
plasmids which also carried the sul3 gene conferring sulfonamide resistance. In human medicine,
macrolide resistance genes have been detected in E. coli isolates from patients who had received
antimicrobial drugs or been hospitalized (Nguyen et al., 2009). E. coli carrying macrolide resistance
genes can be associated with ESBL-producing E. coli and were also detected in E. coli co-resistant to
trimethoprim/sulfonamides and amoxicillin; such human E. coli isolates may constitute a reservoir of
macrolide resistance genes for Salmonella or Shigella (Nguyen et al., 2009).
20
Of particular note is that microbiological resistance to ciprofloxacin was addressed using ECOFF CIP >0.064 mg/L in this
report (see Section 3.3.5 Discussion, for further details).

3.3.1. Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from animals
Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from broilers

In 2014, 27 MSs and one non-MS provided data in indicator E. coli isolates from broilers (Table 27).
All MSs collected indicator E. coli isolates based on the requirements lay down in Decision
2013/652/EC. As Romania, where the resistance levels observed were among the highest reported,
accounted for 17% of the E. coli isolates from broilers included in the analysis, the resistance rates
presented at the reporting MS group level are impacted by the occurrence of resistance recorded in
Romania.
Resistance levels among Escherichia coli isolates from broilers

Typically, the occurrence of resistance in E. coli isolates from broilers varied markedly between
reporting countries. Resistance to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole, tetracyclines and trimethoprim was
high to very or extremely high in most reporting countries (overall resistance equalling 58.7%, 53.1%,
50.1%, 40.6%, respectively), with the striking exception of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland,
Norway and Sweden) which registered low to moderate resistance to the above mentioned
antimicrobials. Resistance to chloramphenicol ranged widely from low to very high, with the Nordic
countries and Slovenia reporting no resistance. The gentamicin resistance was reported at very low to
low levels, with the exceptions of Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Romania, Spain and the United
Kingdom, recording moderate and high resistance. Resistance to colistin was overall very low at 0.9%,
and recorded only in six countries.
Resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid was generally high to very or extremely high among the
reporting countries (overall resistance equalling 65.7% and 62.6%, respectively), with the exception
of Denmark and Sweden, which reporded moderate resistance and Finland and Norway, which
recorded low resistance to these substances. Comparison of resistance to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic
acid in each reporting country shows that similar levels of resistance to both antimicrobials were
typically recorded.
Resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was generally low in most reporting countries, although four
MSs reported moderate and three high levels of resistance. Cefotaxime and ceftazidime resistance
were either similar or cefotaxime resistance slightly exceeded ceftazidime resistance in most countries,
although, in a few countries (Lithuania, Malta and the Netherlands), ceftazidime resistance exceeded
cefotaxime resistance.

Table 27: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in indicator Escherichia coli from broilers in MSs reporting data in 2014

Austria 176 28.4 176 0.6 176 1.1 176 1.1 176 6.8 176 59.7 176 0
Belgium 158 72.8 158 4.4 158 8.2 158 7 158 20.9 158 69.6 158 0
Bulgaria 85 88.2 85 0 85 0 85 51.8 85 92.9 (a)
Croatia 170 56.5 170 1.8 170 0.6 170 0.6 170 11.2 170 80.6 170 0
Cyprus 87 69.0 87 8.0 87 32.2 87 29.9 87 21.8 87 75.9 87 0
Czech Republic 196 33.2 196 0 196 1.0 196 1.0 196 2.6 196 68.9 196 0
Denmark 191 14.1 191 0 191 0 191 0 191 0 191 12.0 191 0
Estonia 71 88.7 71 8.5 71 4.2 71 2.8 71 22.5 71 88.7 71 1.4
Finland 175 4.6 175 0 175 0 175 0 175 0 175 4.6 175 0
France 226 55.8 226 2.7 226 4.0 226 4.0 226 3.1 226 44.2 226 1.8
Germany 227 55.9 227 10.1 227 1.3 227 1.3 227 18.9 227 47.6 227 7.0
Greece 172 69.8 172 9.3 172 2.9 172 2.9 172 35.5 172 89.0 172 0
Hungary 170 42.9 170 4.7 170 2.9 170 2.9 170 9.4 170 72.9 170 0
Ireland 167 69.5 167 6.6 167 4.2 167 3.6 167 6.6 167 41.3 167 0
Italy 170 86.5 170 2.9 170 6.5 170 5.9 170 45.9 170 67.6 170 5.3
Latvia 147 53.1 147 0 147 30.6 147 29.9 147 32.7 147 91.8 143 0
Lithuania 85 83.5 85 5.9 85 31.8 85 36.5 85 35.3 85 97.6 85 1.2
Malta 60 45.0 60 15.0 60 20.0 60 25 32 75.0
Netherlands 377 62.1 377 2.1 377 2.9 377 3.2 377 13.5 377 46.4 377 0
Poland 179 72.6 179 0.6 179 2.2 179 2.2 179 19 179 87.7 179 0
Portugal 201 75.6 201 4.0 201 5.5 201 5.5 201 33.8 201 90.5 201 2.5
Romania 859 73.1 859 19.0 859 1.7 859 1.7 859 49.4 859 93.1 (a)
Slovakia 85 67.1 85 12.9 85 12.9 85 11.8 85 11.8 85 94.1 85 0
Slovenia 85 65.9 85 0 85 9.4 85 9.4 85 0 85 70.6 85 0
Spain 170 72.4 170 17.1 170 14.7 170 14.7 170 18.8 170 85.3 170 0
Sweden 197 9.1 197 0 197 0 197 0 197 0 197 11.2 197 0
United Kingdom 159 73.6 159 5.0 159 0 159 0 159 8.8 159 24.5 159 0
Total (MSs 27) 5,045 58.6 4,900 6.7 5,045 5.1 5,045 5.0 5,045 21.6 5,017 65.7 4037 0.9
Norway 205 6.3 205 0 205 1.5 205 1.5 205 0 205 3.4 205 0


Austria 176 2.3 176 56.8 176 33.0 176 29.0 176 0 176 22.7
Belgium 158 5.7 158 63.3 158 58.2 158 45.6 158 0 158 49.4
Bulgaria 85 41.2 85 92.9 85 97.6 85 96.5 85 1.2 85 80.0
Croatia 170 5.3 170 74.7 170 44.7 170 43.5 170 0 170 28.8
Cyprus 87 9.2 87 74.7 87 66.7 87 78.2 87 0 87 57.5
Czech Republic 196 0.5 196 63.8 196 24.5 196 24.0 196 0 196 14.3
Denmark 191 3.1 191 11.0 191 13.1 191 5.8 191 0 191 7.3
Estonia 71 0 71 77.5 71 40.8 71 18.3 71 0 71 46.5
Finland 175 0.6 175 4.6 175 6.9 175 10.9 175 0 175 5.1
France 226 1.8 226 42.0 226 48.2 226 63.3 226 0 226 42.9
Germany 227 7.0 227 44.5 227 53.7 227 33.9 227 0 227 37.0
Greece 172 12.8 172 86.0 172 70.3 172 68.0 172 0 172 61.6
Hungary 170 5.3 170 73.5 170 43.5 170 39.4 170 0.6 170 23.5
Ireland 167 6.0 167 41.9 167 49.7 167 52.7 167 0 167 39.5
Italy 170 8.2 170 64.1 170 77.6 170 73.5 170 0 170 62.9
Latvia 147 2.7 147 86.4 147 51.0 147 53.1 147 0 147 36.1
Lithuania 84 25.0 85 90.6 85 76.5 82 56.1 85 0 85 61.2
Malta 60 5.0 60 65.0 60 51.7 60 45.0 60 36.7
Netherlands 377 6.4 377 44.6 377 52.5 377 42.4 377 0 377 44.6
Poland 179 3.9 179 79.3 179 58.1 179 62.0 179 0 179 38.5
Portugal 201 10 201 88.6 201 69.2 201 66.2 201 0 201 54.2
Romania 859 30.5 859 88.5 859 76.8 859 73.8 859 0 859 57.4
Slovakia 85 5.9 85 94.1 85 45.9 85 43.5 85 0 85 36.5
Slovenia 85 0 85 64.7 85 37.6 85 31.8 85 0 85 34.1
Spain 170 32.9 170 84.1 170 50.0 170 60.6 170 0 170 37.1
Sweden 197 0 197 11.2 197 12.7 197 9.6 197 0 197 7.6
United Kingdom 159 20.8 159 25.2 159 64.8 159 60.4 159 0 159 46.5
Total (MSs 27) 5,044 11.6 5,045 62.6 5,045 53.1 5,043 50.1 4,985 0 5,045 40.6
Norway 205 0 205 3.4 205 3.4 205 1.5 205 0 205 3.4
Note: All E. coli isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem.
MSs: Member States; N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates;: no information available.

Temporal trends in resistance among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from broilers
Temporal trends in resistance to selected antimicrobials in indicator E. coli isolates from broilers over
the 7-year study period from 2008 to 2014 are displayed on Figure 68 and Figure 69. Four MSs and
Switzerland provided resistance data on 5 years or more to be included in the statistical analysis.
Marked discrepancies in resistance levels between reporting MSs was observed for many of the
antimicrobials. France, Spain and the Netherlands tended to report the highest levels of resistance to
most antimicrobials over the period, although Austria, Spain and the Netherlands recorded the highest
resistance to quinolones between 2010 and 2014, and France, Spain and the Netherlands registered
the highest resistance to tetracyclines from 2008 to 2014. Conversely, Denmark generally recorded
the lowest resistance levels reported.
The resistance to ciprofloxacin reported over the study period was high to very high for all reporting
countries, with the exception of Denmark for the whole period. A close similarity in resistance levels to
ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid was observed in most MSs. Such inter-annual evolutions need to be
confirmed by longer term trends.
Although resistance to many of the antimicrobials was broadly stable or had shown only gradual
increases or decreases over the study period, statistically significant trends in resistance to some of
the antimicrobials over 5 or more years were discerned. France and Switzerland recorded significant
increases in resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid, and cefotaxime only by France,
while, contrastingly, the Netherlands reported significant declines in resistance to ampicillin,
cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracyclines over the last 5 years.

MS: Member State.

Statistically significant increasing trends over 5 or more years, as tested by a logistic regression model (p 05), were observed
for ampicillin in France () and Switzerland (). Statistically significant decreasing trends over five or more years were observed
for ampicillin and tetracycline in the Netherlands () and for tetracycline in France ().
Figure 68: Trends in ampicillin and tetracyclines resistance in indicator Escherichia coli from broilers
in reporting countries, 20082014

Austria Denmark France

100
75
50
25
0
Germany Netherlands Poland
100
75
50
25
0
Spain Switzerland
100
75
50
25
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Year
AMR CIP CTX NAL
MS: Member State.

Statistically significant increasing trends over 5 or more years, as tested by a logistic regression model (p 05), were observed
for cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in France () and for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid Switzerland (). Statistically
significant decreasing trends over 5 or more years were observed for cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in the
Netherlands (), for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Austria ().
Figure 69: Trends in cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance in indicator
Escherichia coli from broilers in reporting countries, 20082014
Spatial distribution of resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from broilers

The spatial distributions of ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and cefotaxime resistance in E. coli from
broilers are shown in Figure 70, Figure 71 and Figure 72. The Nordic countries reported the lowest
levels of resistance to both antimicrobials. The highest resistance to cefotaxime tended to be reported
by the most western countries, whereas the spatial pattern for nalidixic acid was less clear.

broilers in reporting countries, in 2014

Figure 72: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from broilers
in reporting countries, in 2014
Multiple resistance among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from broilers

For 2014, 26 MSs and one non-MS provided data regarding resistance in indicator E. coli in broilers.
Among the reporting countries, marked variations were observed in the percentages of completely
susceptible isolates, which varied from none in Bulgaria and Lithuania to 81.7% in Finland and 85.9%
in Norway.
Although all reporting countries recorded multiresistant isolates, the proportion differed substantially
between them, reaching up to 95.3% in Bulgaria (Table COMESCHEBR). The frequency distributions
(Figure 73) showed that isolates resistant to as many as five antimicrobials were reported from all
reporting countries, except Finland, Norway and Sweden, and eight MSs reported a few isolates
resistant to eight substances and two isolates reported by two MSs were resistant to nine substances.
Co-resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin was detected at high (Cyprus) to very low levels
(Hungary) in the MSs, when CBPs were applied (Table COMESCHEBR).

Norway (N=205)
Finland (N=175)
Sweden (N=197)
Denmark (N=191)
Austria (N=176)
Germany (N=227)
Netherlands (N=377) sus
Ireland (N=167) res2
France (N=226)
res3
Hungary (N=170) res4
Cyprus (N=87) res5
Belgium (N=158) res6
Slovenia (N=85)
res7
Spain (N=170)
Italy (N=170) res8
Croatia (N=170) res9
Latvia (N=143)
Poland (N=179)
Estonia (N=71)
Portugal (N=201)
Greece (N=172)
Slovakia (N=85)
Lithuania (N=81)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
one to twelve antimicrobials in broilers in reporting countries, 2014
Multi-/co-resistance patterns among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from broilers

As expected, most isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin were also resistant to nalidixic acid when using
ECOFFs as interpretive thresholds of resistance. The same behaviour was found for the isolates which
were resistant to ceftazidime and were also resistant to cefotaxime. Considering the resistance
patterns of isolates co-resistant to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime (210 isolates), a number of isolates
(125 out of 210 or 59.5%) were also resistant to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracyclines, with
or without additional resistances. Trimethoprim resistance was also commonly observed in isolates co-
resistant to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime, whereas resistance to nalidixic acid and ampicillin was
expected in such co-resistant isolates. A variety of resistance patterns was observed in co-resistant
isolates, each pattern occurring at a low frequency. The most common pattern of co-resistance was
resistance to ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime and ampicillin, occurring in 0.6% of the total number of isolates
and detected in five reporting countries. Analysing the occurrence of higher levels of resistance to
ciprofloxacin in E. coli reveals marked differences between MSs (Table CIPESCHEBR); high-level
ciprofloxacin resistance was most frequently observed in countries with a high proportion of isolates
showing microbiological resistance. A wide variety of resistance patterns was observed in high-level
ciprofloxacin resistant isolates, each pattern occurring at a low frequency.
Table 28: Co-resistance to (fluoro)quinolones and third-generation cephalosporins in indicator

Escherichia coli from broilers in MSs, 2014
Resistant to
Resistant to both
MDR patterns of isolates resistant to both CIP both CIP and
CIP and CTX,
Country N and CTX CTX, applying
applying ECOFFs
(number of isolates) CBPs
N % Res N % Res
Austria 176 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL(1) 1 0.6
Belgium 158 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(2) 13 8.2 4 2.5
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(2)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(3)
CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1)
CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(1)

Resistant to
Resistant to both
CIP and CTX,
applying ECOFFs
N % Res N % Res
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL(1)
GEN-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1)
Croatia 170 GEN-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1) 1 0.6
Cyprus 87 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(2) 28 32.2 18 20.7
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-TET(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-TET-TMP(1)
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(4)
GEN-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(2)
Czech 196 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL(2) 2 1.0
Republic
Estonia 71 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL(2) 3 4.2
CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL(1)
France 226 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(3) 4 1.8
Germany 227 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-COL-NAL-SMX-TMP(1) 2 0.9
Greece 172 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1) 4 2.3 4 2.3
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(1)
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-SMX-TET-TMP(1)
Hungary 170 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1) 4 2.4 1 0.6
Ireland 167 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1) 2 1.2
CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1)
Italy 170 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-COL-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1) 5 2.9 2 1.2
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-SMX-TET(1)
Latvia 143 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX(4) 43 30.1 15 10.5
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(4)
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(4)
CHL-CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-SMX-TET(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-TET(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-NAL(1)
CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL-TET(1)
Lithuania 81 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX(1) 26 32.1 14 17.3
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1)
CHL-CTX-CIP-AMP-SMX-TMP(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-COL-NAL-SMX-TET(1)
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-SMX-TET(1)
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX(1)
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(2)
Netherlands 377 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1) 2 0.5
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(1)
Poland 179 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1) 4 2.2 3 1.7

Resistant to
Resistant to both
CIP and CTX,
applying ECOFFs
N % Res N % Res
Portugal 201 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(2) 10 5.0 3 1.5
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-COL-NAL-SMX(1)
Slovakia 85 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX(1) 10 11.8 8 9.4
CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(3)
Slovenia 85 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP(1) 5 5.9
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-TET(2)
Spain 170 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1) 25 14.7 15 8.8
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX(1)
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(1)
GEN-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX(1)
GEN-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TMP(1)
GEN-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-TMP(1)
Total 3,311 194 5.9 87 2.6
(MSs 20)
N: number of isolates tested; CIP: ciprofloxacin; CTX: cefotaxime; ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off values; % Res: percentage
of resistant isolates; CBPs: clinical breakpoints; CAZ: ceftazidime; NAL: nalidixic acid; AMP: ampicillin; TET: tetracycline; GEN:
gentamicin; CHL: chloramphenicol; COL: colistin; SMX: sulfamethoxazole; TMP: trimethoprim; MSs: Member States.: no
information available.

A new summary indicator of resistance in broilers at the EU level

A summary indicator of resistance in indicator E. coli from broilers at the EU level was calculated on
the basis of the weighted mean by population correction unit-broiler (PCU-broiler) of the proportions
of resistant isolates observed in each of the 27 reporting MSs (Table 29 displays percentages of
resistance). The population correction unit (PCU) is a specific indicator of animal population size which
has been developed by the EMA primarily to estimate sales corrected by the animal population in
individual countries. PCU is used as a proxy for the size of the animal population domestically
produced at risk of being treated and is purely a technical unit of measurement. In the case of PCU-
broiler, 1 PCU = 1 kg of broilers domestically produced and slaughtered. The data sources used and
the methodology for the calculation of PCU are comprehensively described in Appendix 2 to EMA's
report Trends in the sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in nine European countries: 20052009
(EMA/ESVAC, 2011). For the year 2014, the PCU-broilers were computed by the EMA based on data
reported by the MSs and provided to EFSA (Table 29).
Table 29: PCU-broilers, in 27 MSs, 2014
Country PCU-Broilers weight PCU-Broilers
(in Kg)
Austria 67267152 0.010739426
Belgium 200912716 0.032076388
Bulgaria 43136880 0.006886947
Croatia 34675704 0.005536092
Cyprus 10746150 0.001715659
Czech Republic 117238012 0.018717441
Denmark 118734540 0.018956367
Estonia 373748 5.96701E-05
Finland 63161160 0.010083891
France 835393588 0.133373385
Germany 830028816 0.132516882
Greece 114100540 0.018216534
Hungary 129355559 0.020652048
Ireland
Italy 508036793 0.081109776
Latvia 18506859 0.002954682
Lithuania 46878274 0.007484274
Malta 2242740 0.000358061
Netherlands 414665914 0.066202803
Poland 816079584 0.13028984
Portugal 183147322 0.029240084
Romania 9859665 0.001574129
Slovakia 12221144 0.001951147
Slovenia 34422847 0.005495723
Spain 621756469 0.099265503
Sweden 88917800 0.014196025
United Kingdom 942327808 0.150445792
Total (MSs 27) 6263570396 1
Compared with the proportion of resistant isolates at the EU level (computed as the fraction of the
total number of resistant isolates out of the total number of tested isolates in the group of reporting
MSs) typically presented in this EU Summary Report, the summary indicator better accounts for the
structure of the broiler populations within the EU i.e. the distribution of the broiler population per
reporting MS. More weight is given to the resistance observed in the broiler populations of important
size. Table 30 presents the resistance assessed by using totals and the summary indicator expressed
in percentages of resistant indicator E. coli isolates from broilers. Similar results are obtained,
although the summary indicator is generally slightly lower than the Total.

Table 30: Resistance in indicator E. coli from broilers assessed by the percentage of resistant
isolates (Total) and summary indicator (weighted mean of the proportions of resistant
isolates in the reporting MSs) in the EU, 27 MSs, 2014
EU MSs 27 Ampicillin Azithromycin Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin Colistin
Total (%) 58.7 6.7 5.1 5 21.6 65.7 3.7

Indicator (%) 64.2 5.3 4.2 4.2 16.7 57.7 2.0
EU MSs 27 Gentamicin Nalidixic Sulfamethoxazole Tetracycline Tigecycline Trimethoprim

acid
Total (%) 11.6 62.6 53.1 50.1 0 40.6
Indicator (%) 10.7 54.9 55.1 53.5 0 41.7
MSs: Member States.
Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys

In 2014, 11 MSs provided antimicrobial resistance data on indicator E. coli in fattening turkeys which
were included in the following analysis (Table 31).
Resistance levels among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys
In 2014, resistance to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracyclines in E. coli isolates from fattening
turkeys was generally very high among reporting MSs, ranging from 16.9% to 87.6%, whereas
resistance to chloramphenicol and trimethoprim was overall high at the reporting MSs level.
Conversely, resistance to azithromycin and gentamicin was low to moderate in most reporting
countries, with the notable exception of Italy and Romania, which reported high resistance. The
colistin resistance was generally recorded at low to very low levels. Resistance to ciprofloxacin and
nalidixic acid was high and very high among almost all reporting countries, ranging between 1.7% and
89.5%. The resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was either not detected or reported at low levels
in all reporting countries.
Temporal trends in resistance among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys
There were not enough data to present the trends in resistance to selected antimicrobials in indicator
E. coli from fattening turkeys from 2008 to 2014.
Spatial distribution of resistance among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys
The spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and cefotaxime resistance in indicator E. coli
from fattening turkeys is shown in Figure 74, Figure 75 and Figure 76, respectively. For nalidixic acid,
most countries reported moderate and high levels of resistance so the spatial pattern was less clear.
Figure 76 illustrates the variability in levels of cefotaxime resistance in E. coli across the EU and the
absence of a clear spatial distribution.

Table 31: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in indicator Escherichia coli from fattening turkeys in reporting countries, in 2014
Austria 125 48.0 125 0.8 125 1.6 125 0.8 125 9.6 125 28.0 125 0
France 238 64.3 238 0.8 238 0.4 238 0.4 238 16.4 238 21.0 238 5.9
Germany 170 64.7 170 8.8 170 2.4 170 1.8 170 25.9 170 37.6 170 4.7
Hungary 170 61.2 170 1.8 170 1.8 170 1.8 170 18.8 170 62.9 170 0
Italy 170 78.8 170 3.5 170 1.2 170 1.2 170 26.5 170 60.0 170 22.9
Poland 170 75.9 170 1.2 170 2.4 170 1.8 170 22.9 170 70.0 170 2.9
Portugal 185 80.0 185 4.9 185 2.7 185 2.7 185 52.4 185 79.5 185 27.0
Romania 38 86.8 38 21.1 38 0 38 0 38 78.9 38 89.5 38 2.6
Spain 170 85.3 170 3.5 170 10.0 170 10.0 170 47.6 170 85.9 170 3.5
Sweden 59 25.4 59 0 59 1.7 59 1.7 59 3.4 59 3.4 59 0
United Kingdom 168 69.0 168 1.2 168 0 168 0 168 11.3 168 18.5 168 0
Total (MSs 11) 1,663 69.0 1,663 3.2 1,663 2.3 1,663 2.2 1,663 26.5 1,663 50.3 1,663 7.4

Austria 125 0 125 18.4 125 19.2 125 40.8 125 0 125 12
France 238 4.2 238 19.7 238 45.8 238 75.2 238 0 238 37.4
Germany 170 10.6 170 31.8 170 52.4 170 56.5 170 0 170 30.6
Hungary 169 6.5 170 52.9 170 50.6 170 64.1 170 0.6 170 20
Italy 170 21.8 170 49.4 170 62.4 170 77.6 170 0 170 58.8
Poland 170 11.8 170 58.8 170 55.9 170 73.5 170 0 170 41.2
Portugal 185 14.6 185 73.5 185 71.9 185 85.9 185 0 185 49.7
Romania 38 47.4 38 76.3 38 73.7 38 84.2 38 0 38 52.6
Spain 170 11.2 170 76.5 170 67.1 170 87.6 170 0 170 42.4
Sweden 59 0 59 1.7 59 16.9 59 23.7 59 0 59 5.1
United Kingdom 168 4.2 168 17.3 168 32.7 168 79.2 168 0 168 25
Total (MSs 11) 1,662 10.0 16,63 43.5 1,663 51.1 1,663 70.9 1,663 0.1 1,663 35.4
All E. coli isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem.
MS: Member States; N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates.

fattening turkeys in reporting countries, in 2014

Figure 76: Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
Multiple resistance among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys
Eleven MSs reported isolate-based data from fattening turkeys. Around 14.0% of the isolates tested
were susceptible to the panel tested. In Sweden, 44.1% of the isolates were fully susceptible. Levels
of MDR (i.e. reduced susceptibility to three or more antimicrobial classes) ranged from moderate to
extremely high in reporting countries (Table COMESCHETURK). The frequency distributions
(Figure 77) showed that except Sweden all reporting countries detected MDR to as six antimicrobial
classes. Very few isolates (14 isolates out of 1,663 isolates tested) exhibited co-resistance to
cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin using either ECOFFs or CBPs as interpretive criteria (Table
COESCHETURK).
Sweden (N=59)
Austria (N=125) sus
Germany (N=170) res1
France (N=238) res2

Poland (N=170) res3
Italy (N=170)
res5
Hungary (N=170)
res6
Portugal (N=185)
res7
Spain (N=170)
res8
Romania (N=38)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
one to 12 antimicrobials in fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014

Multi-/co-resistance patterns among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys
Indicator E. coli isolates resistant to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin using CBPs were observed in few
isolates from Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, and ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline
resistance was often present in the isolates tested (Table 32 and Table MULTIESCHETURK). These
additional resistances (together with trimethoprim resistance in some cases) were noted in E. coli
isolates showing high-level ciprofloxacin resistance (Table CIPESCHETURK).
Table 32: Co-resistance to fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins in indicator

Escherichia coli from fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014
Resistant to both Resistant to both
Multidrug Resistance patterns of isolates CIP and CTX, CIP and CTX,
Country N resistant to both CIP and CTX applying ECOFFs applying CBPs
(number of isolates)
N % Res N % Res
Austria 125 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-TET(1) 1 0.8
France 238 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-COL-NAL-TMP(1) 1 0.4
Germany 170 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1) 3 1.8 2 1.2
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-
TMP(2)
Hungary 170 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL(1) 2 1.2
Italy 170 CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-TET-TMP(1) 2 1.2 1 0.6
CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-SMX-TET-TMP(1)
Poland 170 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1) 4 2.4 1 0.6
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-SMX-TET(1)
GEN-CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-
TMP(1)
GEN-CHL-CTX-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET-TMP(1)
Portugal 185 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX(1) 4 2.2
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-COL-NAL-SMX-TET(2)
Spain 170 CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-NAL-SMX-TET(6) 15 8.8 10 5.9
CHL-CTX-CAZ-CIP-AMP-SMX-TET(2)
Total (MSs 8) 1,398 32 2.3 14 1
N: number of isolates tested; CIP: ciprofloxacin; CTX: cefotaxime; ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off values; % Res: percentage
of resistant isolates; CBPs: clinical breakpoints; CAZ: ceftazidime; NAL: nalidixic acid; AMP: ampicillin; TET: tetracycline; GEN:
gentamicin; CHL: chloramphenicol; COL: colistin; SMX: sulfamethoxazole; TMP: trimethoprim; MSs: Member States.: no
information available.
3.3.2. Multiple drug resistance patterns in indicator Escherichia coli isolates

The MDR patterns in indicator E. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys are shown in
Tables MULTIESCHEBR and MULTIESCHETURK.
Multiple drug resistance in Escherichia coli isolates from broilers

A large number of different MDR patterns in indicator E. coli isolates from broilers were evident (148
different patterns displayed by 2,834 isolates), reflecting the diverse nature of the E. coli strains
tested (Table MULTIESCHEBR). Resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, sulfamethoxazole,
tetracyclines and trimethoprim was observed as a core pattern in 41.2% of all E. coli isolates from
broilers and was the predominant MDR pattern (9.6%). This is similar with the data from previous
year, a common core of resistance to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and tetracyclines, generally with
resistance to ciprofloxacin and frequently with resistance to streptomycin and trimethoprim, was
discernible. Patterns which occurred at a higher frequency (> 1%) did not include resistance to

cefotaxime/ceftazidime; cefotaxime/ceftazidime resistance occurred as a component of infrequent

MDR patterns in 8.7% of the isolates showing MDR. Ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid resistance frequently
occurred as a component of MDR in E. coli from broilers and was a component of 103 of the 148 MDR
patterns detected (70.0%) and was observed in 84.6% of MDR isolates (2,397 out of 2,834).
Multiple drug resistance in Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys

The overall range of different MDR patterns observed in indicator E. coli isolates from fattening
turkeys in MSs reporting isolate-based data were similar to that seen in broilers, with a large number
of different resistance patterns evident (97 different patterns displayed by 986 isolates), again
reflecting the diverse nature of the E. coli strains which have been tested (Table MULTIESCHETURK).
Particular MDR patterns were predominant in fattening turkeys, with one pattern (resistance to
ampicillin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid, tetracyclines, sulfamethoxazole and
trimethoprim) occurring at a frequency of 21.1% among the MDR patterns obtained and 12.5% of all
E. coli from turkeys. In fattening turkeys, E. coli with three MDR patterns (including a common core
pattern of resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid and tetracyclines) accounted for
approximately 40.0% of the total number of multiresistant E. coli isolates for which data were
available. Resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid and tetracyclines also occurred as a
recurring core pattern in isolates showing additional resistances. Considering those resistance patterns
occurring at a higher frequency in fattening turkeys, these did not generally include resistance to
cefotaxime/ceftazidime; however, cefotaxime/ceftazidime resistance occured as a component of
infrequent resistance patterns in 4.0% of MDR isolates. Ciprofloxacin/nalidixic acid resistance occurred
less frequently than in broilers as a component of MDR in fattening turkeys, occurring in 61 of the 97
(62.9%) resistance patterns observed and was present in 74.1% of fattening turkeys MDR E. coli
isolates (731 out of 986).
Resistance to colistin in E. coli from broilers and turkeys (see also main findings section)
Monitoring of colistin resistance has recently assumed greater importance with the discovery of
transferable resistance to colistin, conferred by the gene mcr-1 in China (Liu et al., 2015). The mcr-1
gene encodes a phosphoethanolamine transferase, which adds a phosphoethanolamine moiety to the
lipid A of the lipopolysaccharide component of the bacterial cell wall. Historically, resistance to colistin
was related to chromosomal alterations, which also affected lipid A and reduced the binding of colistin
to the cell wall, but these chromosomal alterations were not transferable. 2014 was the first year in
which the monitoring of colistin resistance in E. coli from animals was mandatory, and 0.9% and 7.4%
of the E. coli isolated from broilers and turkeys, respectively, were resistant to this antimicrobial.
Where colistin resistance is conferred by chromosomal alterations, then isolates with such alterations
either arise by mutation or through clonal expansion of resistant strains. In plasmid-mediated colistin
resistance, depending on the transmissibility and promiscuity of the plasmid and any other resistance
genes which are carried by the pasmid, then a different progression in the development of resistance
might be expected. In the case of promiscuous plasmids, this might involve rapid and extensive
dissemination to a wide range of E. coli strains.
As this report was being prepared, a number of countries worldwide reported the presence of mcr-1
in enterobacteriaceae recovered from humans, food or animals. Such reports demonstrated that mcr-1
was present in E. coli in food-producing animals (pigs and cattle) in Belgium in 2011-2012 (Malhotra-
Kumar et al., 2016) in France in veal calves in 2005 (Haenni et al., 2016) and in Germany in pigs in
2010 (Falgenhauer et al., 2016). Furthermore, the mcr-1 gene with or without the truncated mobile
genetic element ISApl1 in some cases occurred on a plasmid different from that reported in China,
which indicated that the mcr-1 gene has been transferred between different plasmids (Malhotra-
Kumar et al., 2016). These studies also showed that plasmids carrying mcr-1 had transferred between
different bacteria, because unrelated E. coli strains carried mcr-1 (Haenni et al., 2016). E. coli isolates
reported from pigs in Germany and veal calves in France also produced extended-spectrum beta-
lactamases (Falgenhauer et al., 2016; Haenni et al., 2016); although isolates from animals in Belgium
did not produce ESBLs, one which was sequenced showed multi-drug resistance (Malhotra-Kumar et
al., 2016). Although enterobacteriaceae from animals in Europe have not so far been reported which
carry mcr-1 and which are resistant to carbapenems, this has been reported in human clinical isolates
(Poirel et al., 2016).

3.3.3. Discussion
Studying the antimicrobial resistance of indicator commensal E. coli from animals and food provides
information on the reservoir of resistance genes occurring in those bacteria that could be transferred
to bacteria that are pathogenic for humans and/or animals. The occurrence of resistance to
antimicrobials in indicator E. coli is likely to depend on a number of factors including the selective
pressure exerted by use of antimicrobials in various food-producing animal populations; clonal spread
of resistant organisms; dissemination of particular genetic elements, such as resistance plasmids; and
the effects of co-selection in multiresistant organisms.
A total of 27 MSs and two non-MSs provided quantitative E. coli MIC data in 2014 for at least one of
the livestock species. Reported antimicrobial resistance data in E. coli isolates from food-producing
animals, derived mainly from active and representative monitoring programmes, were chiefly based
on randomised sampling performed at slaughterhouses. At the reporting MS group level, a high level
of microbiological resistance was observed to several antimicrobials among food-producing animals,
with some countries reporting a very or extremely high occurrence of such resistance. As resistance
levels tend to vary substantially between countries, the variation in resistance in broilers and fattening
turkeys observed between 2008 and 2014, at the overall MS group level, may partly result from
different MSs contributing to data as well as different production types of livestock being sampled.
Resistance levels were generally higher among E. coli isolates from broilers than isolates from
fattening turkeys. This was the fourth year that resistance data were reported separately for different
production types of Gallus gallus and it was the first year that mandatory AMR monitoring in indicator
E. coli broilers was in place.
Generally, similar microbiological resistance levels were identified for ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole and
tetracyclines, both in individual MSs and at the MS group level. These compounds are commonly used
therapeutically in animals and have been for many years; resistance to all three compounds often
features as a component of MDR patterns. At the MS group level, resistance to gentamicin was higher
in broilers (11.6%) than in fattening turkeys (10.0%). Gentamicin is an interesting antimicrobial
because there are differences in the degree of usage in different MSs of this and other antimicrobials
to which cross-resistance may occur (for example, apramycin).
Microbiological resistance to fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) a class of antimicrobials critically
important in human medicine was found at higher levels in E. coli isolates from broilers than from
fattening turkeys. As resistance to fluoroquinolones commonly includes a mutational component, this
suggests either that E. coli isolates from broilers are exposed to greater selective pressure from the
overall use of fluoroquinolones or that the use of fluoroquinolones at a particular part of the
production pyramid (which selects for mutational resistance) causes resistance which is subsequently
disseminated to flocks lower in the pyramid by the spread and transfer of resistant bacterial clones.
Although the occurrence of high-level fluoroquinolone resistance is likely to be influenced by the
degree of fluoroquinolone usage, it is also likely to be influenced by the degree to which terminal
hygiene and disinfection procedures allow strains that have developed some resistance to persist and
colonise the subsequent group of animals. The occurrence of resistance to nalidixic acid was usually
similar to that for ciprofloxacin, suggesting that mutation was responsible for resistance. However, in
some MSs, the occurrence of resistance to ciprofloxacin was slightly higher than that obtained for
nalidixic acid, particularly in fattening turkeys. In these cases, mechanisms such as transferable
fluoroquinolone resistance conferred by qnr genes may have been responsible for resistance; as such,
plasmid-mediated mechanisms can result in this phenotypic pattern of resistance.
Microbiological resistance to third-generation cephalosporins (cefotaxime and ceftazidime) another
class categorised as critically important in human medicine was infrequently detected in 2014 in
E. coli from fattening turkeys where levels were < 2.3% in all reporting MSs. A number of reporting
MSs recorded high to moderate levels in E. coli from broilers, and resistance was typically higher in
isolates from broilers than in fattening turkeys. Monitoring using selective media for cefotaxime
resistance can detect cefotaxime-resistant E. coli present as a minor component of the total bacterial
flora in the test sample, which might only occasionally be detected by random sampling from non-
selective culture plates, and this will be performed from 2015, in accordance with Decision
2013/652/EU.

The levels of MDR21 in most reporting countries were relatively high in indicator E. coli isolates from
both broilers (8.195.3%) and fattening turkeys (10.289.5%), they were overall at very high levels
of resistance (54.3% in broilers and 58.9% in turkeys); as expected, the numbers of fully susceptible
isolates showed the inverse pattern. In general, the Nordic countries showed higher levels of full
susceptibility than other MSs; thus, in broilers, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway were the only
reporting countries with > 70% full susceptibility, while, in fattening turkeys, Sweden and Austria
were the only reporting MSs with >30% full susceptibility. Considering clinical resistance, co-
resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin was detected at very low to high levels in broilers in 12 MSs
and at very low to low levels in four MSs in fattening turkeys in 2014. These E. coli isolates were
randomly chosen from non-selective culture plates and they may have limited direct relevance to
human medicine; however they provide an indication of the extent to which this combination of
resistance is occurring in the E. coli flora of animals in the different reporting countries.
This year, the MDR patterns shown by indicator E. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys from MSs
reporting isolate-based data have again been included in this report. Resistance to ampicillin,
ciprofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, tetracyclines and trimethoprim was observed in 9.8% of all E. coli
isolates from broilers and was the predominant MDR pattern. Particular MDR patterns were
predominant in fattening turkeys, with one pattern occurring at a frequency of 15.9% amongst the
MDR patterns obtained. Two other MDR patterns each accounted more than 9.0% of the total MDR
isolates. The occurrence of these particular patterns might reflect spread of particular clones of
bacteria which exhibit that pattern of resistance or dissemination of plasmids carrying those
resistances and possibly being transmitted between different strains of E. coli. Strain typing of
selected E. coli isolates and detailed examination of E. coli plasmids would assist in differentiating
between clonal expansion of MDR E. coli strains and the spread of promiscuous MDR plasmids
between different E. coli strains by bacterial conjugation. The findings indicate some differences
between fattening turkeys and broilers in relation to the occurrence of multi-drug-resistant E. coli and
also reveal for broilers slight differences from the previous year, when no single MDR pattern was
predominant.
In broilers and also in fattening turkeys, ciprofloxacin resistance was particularly noted in MDR
patterns, and resistance to this compound can be mediated through chromosomal mutations or
through transferable mechanisms of resistance. Ciprofloxacin resistance was observed in 84.7% of
MDR E. coli isolates from broilers (2,386 out of 2,818), whereas ciprofloxacin resistance also occurred
frequently as a component of MDR in fattening turkeys and was present in 74.4% (728 out of 979) of
MDR E. coli isolates. Considering the resistance patterns occurring at a higher frequency in broilers,
and fattening turkeys, these did not generally include resistance to cefotaxime; however, cefotaxime
resistance did occur as a component of infrequent resistance patterns.
Tigecycline resistance was infrequently detected in E. coli isolates from broilers and turkeys. There are
technical issues in relation to testing tigecycline susceptibility and the isolates identified as showing
microbiological resistance will be subjected to further investigation at the EURL-AR. Marked
differences were evident between the results obtained for E. coli (where resistance was rare) and
Salmonella where resistance occurred more frequently and was associated with certain serovars, for
example, S. Infantis.
The most common pattern of multiple resistance in E. coli isolates from broilers that were co-resistant
to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime was resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, cefotaxime, ceftazidime
and ampicillin. This occurred in 0.6% of the total number of E. coli isolates from broilers and was
detected in 11 MSs which reported co-resistant to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime. A relatively simple
pattern of MDR was therefore shown by these isolates and it follows that only a limited number of
antimicrobials or antimicrobial classes is likely to be responsible for selection of isolates with this
resistance pattern; clonal spread of this MDR strain is a further possibility which could be investigated
through strain typing of these E. coli isolates. Co-resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime applying
microbiological breakpoints was less common in fattening turkeys (2.3% of all E. coli isolates) than in
broilers (5% of all E. coli).
21
Proportions of isolates showing reduced susceptibility to at least three antimicrobial classes according to epidemiological cut-
off values.

A variety of resistance patterns was observed in high-level ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli isolates from
broilers and fattening turkeys, with each pattern occurring at a low frequency. This may suggest that,
in fattening turkeys and broilers, there is random mutation occurring in diverse strains of E. coli, which
are accumulating mutations and acquiring resistance. The possible occurrence of plasmid-mediated
quinolone resistance genes in those isolates, as suggested by the phenotypic patterns, calls for
confirmation.
Integrons can be associated with particular antimicrobial resistance genes and, in the Spanish study,22
both class 1 and class 2 integrons were detected in fattening turkeys and chickens. Class 1 integrons
classically carry the resistance gene sul1; additionally, both types of integrons in the Spanish study
often carried genes associated with streptomycin and trimethoprim resistance, whereas resistance
genes conferring chloramphenicol and gentamicin resistance were detected in the variable region of
class 1 integrons only. The widespread occurrence of integrons and their associated antimicrobial
resistance genes in E. coli from animals is likely to account for some of the resistance patterns (or
associations between resistances) which are evident in the MDR tables and probably explains why
sulfonamide, streptomycin and trimethoprim resistance are common components of MDR patterns.
The Spanish study also reported that the presence of integrons was associated with resistance to
amoxicillin (equivalent to ampicillin for resistance purposes) and tetracyclines. The common core
patterns of resistance to ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole, tetracyclines and trimethoprim (and
combinations thereof) frequently observed in the monitoring of E. coli isolates are probably therefore
related to the presence of integrons.
Full resistance to all of the antimicrobials in the test panel was not observed in any isolates from
broilers and fattening turkeys. Although no E. coli isolates from broilers or turkeys were resistant to
meropenem, further testing with the supplementary panel of cephalosporins and carbapenems
revealed that a number of isolates from broilers and a single isolate from turkeys were resistant to
ertapenem. The phenotypic resistance patterns were suggestive of permeability changes to the
bacterial cell wall (loss of porins) acting in association with AmpC or ESBL enzymes and are discussed
further in Chapter 3.6 on cephalosporin resistance.
22
High prevalence of multiple resistance to antibiotics in Salmonella serovars isolated from a poultry slaughterhouse in Spain,
Vet Microbiol. 2004 Nov 30;104(1-2):1339.

3.4. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

MRSA has been recognised as an important cause of infections in humans for decades. Strains of
MRSA causing infections in humans can be divided into three broad categories, healthcare-
associated (HA-), community-associated (CA-) and livestock-associated (LA-) MRSA. LA-MRSA has
been detected in pigs and poultry, as well as some other farm animal species in many countries
worldwide. HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA include strains which predominantly affect humans, and these
generally do not involve food-producing animals, although LA-MRSA may also be harboured by
humans, especially where there is occupational contact with affected livestock. LA-MRSA may
cause illness in human, although transmissibility between humans has been shown to be very
limited, even in healthcare facilities.1
Antimicrobial susceptibility in European invasive Staphylococcus aureus isolates is reported by the
MSs to the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net) hosted by ECDC.
Molecular typing data are not reported and thus, where there may be possible links to the animal
reservoir of LA-MRSA, these cannot be detected easily with current monitoring procedures, at least
at the European level. The EU/EEA population-weighted mean MRSA percentage was 17.4.0% in
2014. Although a significantly decreasing trend was observed from 2011 to 2014, the decrease
was less pronounced compared with what was observed for the period from 2009 to 2012. MRSA
remains a human public health priority, as the percentage of MRSA remains above 25.0% in 7 out
of 19 countries, mainly in southern and south-eastern Europe (ECDC, 2015).
A principal recommendation (EFSA, 2009a, 2009c and 2012b) is that monitoring of food-producing
animals, in particular intensively reared animals, is carried out periodically in conjunction with
systematic surveillance of MRSA in humans, so that trends in the diffusion and evolution of
zoonotically acquired MRSA in humans can be identified. Isolates representative of various animal and
food origins should be analysed for lineage determination, antimicrobial susceptibility and virulence-
associated traits. Monitoring of MRSA in animals and food is currently performed by MSs voluntarily. 23
3.4.1. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food and animals

LA-MRSA isolates are the principal focus of this section, which summarises the MRSA prevalence and
resistance results in various foodstuffs and food-producing animal species/populations reported by six
MSs to EFSA in 2014 (Table MRSAOVERVIEW). Data on AMR of MRSA isolates from food-producing
animals were reported by only two countries in 2014; these countries also reported molecular typing
data. This section also includes occurrence data reported on companion animals. To date, methods for
the isolation of MRSA from food and animals have not been harmonised at the EU level and therefore,
the methods used by individual reporting MSs may differ in sensitivity.
Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food

In 2014, four MSs (Germany, Slovakia, Poland and Spain) and Switzerland reported information on the
occurrence of MRSA in various categories of food (Table 33). Germany investigated a wide range of
meat from turkeys, recording a high level (42.5%) of MRSA prevalence in this food category. Spain
examined a range of food products for MRSA, and positive isolates were obtained from fresh meat
from pigs (one isolate, 3.2%) and meat products from pigs (28 isolates, 12.9%). Switzerland
investigated 319 samples of fresh broiler meat, among which 22 samples (6.9%) tested positive for
MRSA. The corresponding spa-typing data were not available from reporting MSs, as positive isolates
were reported without specifying spa-type. Switzerland reported the corresponding spa-typing for all
the positive results. Generally, meat from several different sources proved positive for MRSA, including
meat from broilers, turkeys and pigs, at various levels of prevalence.
23
The EFSAs assessment of the public health significance of MRSA in animals and food (EFSA, 2009c) and the Joint Scientific
Report of ECDC, EFSA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on MRSA in livestock, companion animals and food (EFSA,
2009a) provide more background information and recommendations on MRSA. These issues were reviewed in the recent
EFSA Scientific Report proposing technical specifications to improve the harmonisation of the monitoring and reporting of the
prevalence, genetic diversity and multiresistance profile of MRSA in food-producing animals and food thereof (EFSA, 2012b).

Table 33: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food, 2014
Food Description Sample Number

categories unit
Country Units (%)
tested Positive for
MRSA
Cheeses made from cows' milk
Poland Soft and semi-soft, processing plant, surveillance Single 3 0
Cheeses made from goats' milk
Poland Hard, processing plant, surveillance Single 1 0
Soft and semi-soft, farm/processing plant, surveillance Single 5 0
Confectionery products and pastes
Slovakia Processing plant, monitoring Single 2 0
Meat from bovine animals
Spain Meat products/minced meat, surveillance Single 8 0
Meat from broilers
Spain Meat products/Meat preparation, surveillance Single 21 0
Switzerland Fresh, retail, monitoring Batch 319 22(a) (6.9%)
Meat from ducks and geese
Spain Fresh, surveillance Single 11 0
Meat from pigs
Spain Fresh, surveillance Single 31 1 (3.2%)
Meat products, surveillance Single 217 28 (12.9%)
Minced meat, Surveillance Single 17 0
Meat from turkey
Germany Fresh, retail, monitoring active Single 339 144 (42.5%)
Spain Meat preparation, surveillance Single 2
Milk
Poland Raw milk for manufacture, processing plant, monitoring Single 4 0
Spain Raw milk, surveillance Single 2 0
Other processed food products and prepared dishes
Slovakia Noodles/sandwiches/ready-to-eat salads, catering/processing Single 11 0
plant, monitoring/surveillance
Vegetables
Slovakia Pre-cut, catering/processing plant, monitoring Single 4 0
Spain Surveillance Single 3 0
(a): Isolates belonged to the spa-type t011 (3 isolates), t032 (3), t034 (14), t571 (1), t899 (1).
Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals
Monitoring meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food-producing animals

For 2014, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland reported
data on the prevalence of MRSA in food-producing animals and/or their environment (Table 34).
The MRSA prevalence in fattening pigs in Switzerland was assessed at 26.5% and, although only the
limited number of 5 animals were investigated in the Netherlands, 3/5 animals tested positive. The
prevalence reported in Norway, which tested a very large number of samples from pig farms, was
very low at 0.1%.
Germany reported a low prevalence of 9.7% in bulk tank milk from dairy herds, whereas the
Netherlands, testing a large number of dairy cows, registered a moderate prevalence of 16.9%.
A holding prevalence of 0.6% and 3.0%, respectively, was recorded in breeding flocks of chickens and
flocks of laying hens in Belgium. Germany reported a high prevalence of turkey flocks positive for
MRSA (21.9%) in investigating turkeys sampled on the farm.

A number of different spa-types were reported (Table 34).The majority of isolates from pigs in
Switzerland were spa-type t034, with lower numbers of t011; both of these spa-types are associated
with MRSA CC398. The other spa-types detected in pigs in Switzerland were single isolates of t899,
which can be associated with ST9 or CC398 (Guardabassi et al., 2009), t2741, which can be
associated with CC11 or CC398 (EFSA, 2009b; Kck et al. 2013) and t208, which is associated with
ST49 in Switzerland (Overesch et al., 2011). Belgium provided spa-type data for MRSA isolates
recovered from Gallus gallus: t1985, which was detected in a single breeding flock of Gallus gallus in
Belgium, is associated with MRSA CC398, whereas t011, which is also associated with CC398, was
detected in laying hens.
Table 34: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food-producing animals (excluding clinical

investigations), 2014
Animal Production type/Description Sample unit Number

species
Country Units (%) Positive
tested for MRSA
Cattle (bovine animals)
Germany Dairy cows, farm, monitoring active Herd (bulk tank milk) 372 36 (9.7%)
Netherlands Dairy cows, farm, monitoring 12,075 2,045 (16.9%)
Gallus gallus (fowl)
Belgium Breeding flocks, farm, monitoring active Holding 159 1(a) (0.6%)
Laying hens, farm, monitoring - active Holding 233 7(b) (3.0%)
Pigs
Iceland Fattening pigs, slaughterhouse, monitoring Slaughter batch 24 0
Netherlands Fattening pigs, farm, monitoring Animal 5 3 (60.0%)
Norway Farm, control and eradication programmes Herd 986 1(c) (0.1%)
Switzerland Fattening pigs, slaughterhouse, monitoring Animal 298 79(d) (26.5%)
Turkeys
Germany Farm, monitoring active Flock 192 42 (21.9%)
(a): Isolate belonged to the spa-type t1985.
(b): Isolates belonged to the spa-type t011 (2 isolates) and unspecified (5).
(c): Isolate belonged to the spa-type t011.
(d): Isolates belonged to the spa-type t011 (19 isolates), t034 (57), t208 (1), t2741 (1), t899 (1).
Survey on the prevalence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in

breeding pig holdings with in Sweden
To assess the occurrence and the diversity of MRSA in pig breeding holdings (holdings housing and
selling mainly breeding pigs) in Sweden, a survey was carried out to determine the prevalence of
holdings positive for MRSA in Sweden in SeptemberDecember 2014. The survey involved all 39
nucleus and multiplying pig holdings in Sweden. The weaned pigs of 512 weeks of age were
investigated for MRSA colonisation. Six pigs per box and 15 boxes per herd were sampled. Sampling
was performed by scrubbing the skin behind one ear with a sterile compress. The same compress was
used to sample six pigs in the same box, constituting a pooled sample. Samples were tested for the
presence of MRSA by using the laboratory method used within the framework of the EU baseline
survey (EFSA, 2009), including a two-step selective enrichment, followed by plating on selective media
and blood agar plates.
MRSA was not detected in any sample and holdings investigated. There are reasons to believe that
the MRSA situation in the Swedish pig population still is favourable. The low number of notified human
cases of MRSA CC398 supports this opinion.
In accordance with the Swedish legislation, MRSA in food-producing animals is notifiable to the
Swedish Board of agriculture, which, in the case of findings of MRSA in such animals, shall decide on
actions to be taken.

Clinical investigations for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food-producing animals

Typically, clinical investigations differ from monitoring data in food-producing animals, as selective
culture methods may not be used, the number of units tested may be low and the sample may involve
a biased sample population. Although these data are not prevalence data and cannot be extrapolated
at the population level, it is still considered relevant to report the range of animal species/populations
which can be affected. In 2014, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovakia reported data on
clinical investigations for MRSA in different kinds of food-producing animals (Table 35).
Table 35: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food-producing animals, clinical

investigations, 2014
Animal Production type/Description Sample Number

species unit
Country Units (%) positive
tested for MRSA
Cattle (bovine animals)
Hungary Farm Animal 1 1 (100%)
Farm Herd 71 33(46.5%)
Ireland Dairy cows, farm Animal 3,254 0
Slovakia Calves (under 1 year)/Dairy cows, farm Animal 128 0
Deer
Ireland Farmed, Farm Animal 14 0
Gallus gallus (fowl)
Hungary Farm Animal 89 63 (70.9%)
Ireland Breeding flocks for broiler production Animal 273 0
line/broilers, Farm
Goats
Ireland Mixed herds, farm Animal 91 0
Slovakia Animals over 1 year, farm Animal 5 0
Pheasants
Hungary Meat production flocks, farm Animal 1 1 (100%)
Pigs
Hungary Farm Animal 35 16(45.7%)
Ireland Breeding animals/Fattening pigs farm Animal 789 0
Slovakia Farm Animal 1 0
Rabbits
Hungary Farmed, farm Animal 17 3(17.6%)
Netherlands Animal 17 4(23.5%)
Sheep
Ireland Meat production animals, farm Animal 24 0
Slovakia Animals under 1 year (lambs)/milk ewes, farm Animal 5 0
Turkeys
Ireland Fattening flocks, farm Animal 60 0

Clinical investigations for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in companion animals

Four MSs (Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovakia) reported data on MRSA in companion
animals in 2014 (Table 36). The corresponding spa-typing data were not available.
Table 36: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in companion animals, clinical investigations,

2014
Animal Production type Sample Number

species unit
Country Units (%) Positive
tested for MRSA
Cats
Hungary Pet animals Animal 1 1 (100%)
Ireland Pet animals Animal 6 0
Netherlands Pet animals Animal 45 4 (8.9%)
Slovakia Pet animals Animal 7 0
Dogs
Hungary Pet animals Animal 3 3 (100%)
Ireland Pet animals Animal 152 0
Netherlands Pet animals Animal 56 9 (16.1%)
Slovakia Pet animals Animal 137 0
Solipeds, domestic
Netherlands Horses Animal 28 14 (50.0%)
Slovakia Horses Animal 3 0
Temporal trends in the occurrence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Switzerland reported results on the yearly prevalence of MRSA in fattening pigs from 2009 to 2014
(Table 37). Prevalence has increased annually, rising from 2.2% in 2009 to 26.5% in 2014. The
marked increase is primarily the result of the diffusion within the Swiss population of fattening pigs of
clones of spa-types t034 and t011, both belonging to the clonal complex CC398.

Table 37: Temporal occurrence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals
Country Year Production type/Description Sample Number

unit Units (%)
tested Positive
for MRSA
Switzerland 2009 Fattening pigs, at slaughterhouse, nasal swabs Animal 405 8 (2.2)(a)
2010 Fattening pigs, at slaughterhouse, nasal swabs Animal 392 23 (5.9)(b)
2011 Fattening pigs, at slaughterhouse, nasal swabs, monitoring Animal 392 22 (5.6)(c)
2012 Fattening pigs, at slaughterhouse, nasal swabs, monitoring Animal 397 72 (18.1)(d)
2013 Fattening pigs, at slaughterhouse, nasal swabs, monitoring Animal 351 73 (20.8)(e)
2014 Fattening pigs, at slaughterhouse, nasal swabs, monitoring Animal 298 79 (26.5)(f)
(a): In 2009, isolates were reported as unspecified genotypes.
(b): In 2010, 17 isolates were of genotype ST398-t034-V, one was of genotype ST398-t011-V and five were of genotype ST49-
t208-V.
(c): In 2011, 19 isolates were of genotype ST398-t034-V, one was of genotype ST398-t011-V, one was of genotype ST49-
t208-V and one was of genotype ST1-t2279-IVc.
(d): In 2012, 61 isolates belonged to genotype CC398-t034, nine belonged to genotype CC398-t011 and two belonged to
genotype ST49-t208.
(e): In 2013, 63 isolates belonged to genotype CC398-t034 and 10 belonged to genotype CC398-t011.
(f): In 2014, 57 isolates belonged to genotype CC398-t034, 19 belonged to genotype CC398-t011, and one was genotype
ST49-t208, one was spa-type t2741 and one belonged to the spa-type t899.
Susceptibility testing of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates

In 2014, data on the antimicrobial susceptibility of MRSA isolates were reported only by Belgium and
Switzerland (Table 38). Both countries used a broth dilution method and applied EUCAST ECOFFs to
determine the susceptibility of isolates. All MRSA strains isolated were resistant to penicillin and to
cefoxitin (data not shown).
Tetracycline resistance was common in the MRSA isolates tested and, where spa-typing data were
available, most isolates belonged to spa-types associated with CC398. This was expected, as livestock-
associated MRSA isolates belonging to sequence type ST398 are usually tetracycline resistant (Cromb
et al., 2013).
Among the low numbers of MRSA isolates from Gallus gallus were tested by Belgium, chloramphenicol
resistance was observed in 71.4% of isolates from layers.
Considering the susceptibility of MRSA isolates 24 from meat from broilers reported by Switzerland,
most isolates were resistant to tetracyclines (86.4%) (Table 38).
Among MRSA isolates (N=79) from fattening pigs in Switzerland, resistance was not detected to
chloramphenicol, fusidic acid, linezolid mupirocin or vancomycin (Table 38). Resistance was reported
at extremely high levels to tetracycline (100%), clindamycin (79.7%), tiamulin (78.5%), erythromycin
(75.9%) and trimethoprim (74.7%), and at low levels for kanamycin and ciprofloxacin (8.9%),
gentamicin (6.3%), sulfamethoxazole (3.8%) and rifampicin (1.3%).
Vancomycin is one of the antimicrobials of last resort for treating S. aureus infections in humans, and
resistance to this antimicrobial is currently extremely rare. None of the isolates from pigs, layers,
breeding chickens or meat from broilers, was resistant to neither vancomycin nor linezolid.
24
The corresponding spa-type are presented in the footnote of.

Table 38: Occurrence of resistance (%) to selected antimicrobials in MRSA from food and animals,
2014
Country Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin Clindamycin Erythromycin Fusidic acid

Gallus gallus (fowl) breeding flocks
Belgium 1 0 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 0
Gallus gallus (fowl) laying hens
Belgium 7 71.4 7 14.3 7 42.9 7 85.7 7 28.6
Meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) fresh
Switzerland 22 0 22 22.7 22 86.4 22 72.7 22 0
Pigs fattening pigs
Switzerland 79 0 79 8.9 79 79.7 79 75.9 79 0
Country Gentamicin Kanamycin Linezolid Mupirocin Quinupristin/

Dalfopristin
Belgium 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Belgium 7 14.3 7 71.4 7 0 7 14.3 7 14.3
Switzerland 22 0 22 0 22 0 22 0
Pigs fattening pigs
Switzerland 79 6.3 79 8.9 79 0 79 0
Country Rifampicin Streptomycin Sulfamethoxazole Tetracyclines Tiamulin Trimethoprim

Belgium 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 100 1 0 1 100
Belgium 7 71.4 7 71.4 7 71.4 7 85.7 7 28.6 7 28.6
Switzerland 22 0 22 18.2 22 13.6 22 86.4 22 77.3 22 86.4
Pigs fattening pigs
Switzerland 79 1.3 79 59.5 79 3.8 79 100 79 78.5 79 74.7
: no information available;
N: number of isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates; : no data reported.
All MRSA isolates tested were also resistant to penicillin and cefoxitin as expected. All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin
and linezolid.
3.4.2. Discussion
Monitoring of MRSA in animals and food is currently voluntary and only a limited number of countries
reported MRSA data to EFSA in 2014. A number of MRSA strains have been detected in animals and
animal products, indicating that animals can acquire and disseminate MRSA strains other than those
which might strictly be regarded as LA-MRSA (Normanno et al., 2015; Battisti et al., 2010).
Although food is not currently considered to be a relevant source of MRSA infection or colonisation of
humans (EFSA, 2009c), the monitoring of MRSA in various food products performed in several MSs
consistently indicates that MRSA can be detected, quite frequently, in different types of food. Such
food included chicken, pork and meat from turkeys in 2014. It should be underlined that the
laboratory techniques used to detect MRSA employ selective bacterial culture and thus, very low levels
of contamination can be detected. LA-MRSA is considered a poor coloniser of humans and occurs
uncommonly in persons without direct or indirect contact with livestock or carcases derived thereof
(Graveland et al., 2010). Only low numbers of samples of some food were tested and prevalence
estimates are therefore likely to have wide confidence intervals, as a result of the small sample sizes.
Cross-contamination between carcases on slaughterhouse lines or during production processes may
result in a higher prevalence in meat produced from animals than in the animals themselves. It is also
noteworthy that prevalence measures may be obtained in relation to the contamination of individual
carcases, meat or other products, but for colonised animals, prevalence measures may be determined
at the flock or holding level, rather than by determining the status of individual animals.

Considering trends in the occurrence of MRSA in food, the monitoring of MRSA in meat products from
pigs in Spain showed an increase in prevalence of MRSA over the period 20122014, from 0% in 2012
to 8.5% in 2013 and 12.9% in 2014. In Germany, the prevalence of MRSA in fresh retail meat from
turkeys was assessed at similar levels of 37.7% and 42.5% in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
Switzerland reported spa-typing results for MRSA isolates from meat from broilers and most isolates
(19/22) belonged to spa-types associated with LA-MRSA CC398 (t011, t034, t571 and t899 25).
Although S. aureus belonging to spa-type t571 has been associated with severe disease in humans, a
particular clone of meticillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) differing from that occurring in animals is
responsible (Cuny et al., 2013). The spa-type t571 isolates reported by Switzerland are meticillin-
resistant and are therefore likely to be related to LA-MRSA, rather than the human MSSA t571 clone.
Three isolates from broiler meat at retail were spa-type t032, which is a spa-type associated with the
HA-MRSA, EMRSA-15, belonging to CC22. Spa-type t032 is therefore usually associated with a
healthcare-associated strain of MRSA, not commonly reported from food-producing animals.
Contamination of meat with HA-MRSA from persons in contact with the meat at some point is a
possible explanation for its occurrence.
In food-producing animals in 2014, most of the MRSA spa-types detected were associated with LA-
MRSA CC398. Switzerland detected single isolates of spa-types t899 and t2741, which can also be
associated with CC398, but which may also associated with either ST9 or CC11, respectively. Although
the likelihood is that these isolates were also associated with CC398, the findings illustrate the
limitations of spa-typing as a single method of definitively assigning all of the animal isolates which
were recovered by reporting countries to particular MRSA lineages. Spa-type t208, which is associated
with ST49 in Switzerland, has been considered to have emerged in the Swiss fattening pig population
by acquisition of the SCCmec element by MSSA belonging to ST49 (Overesch et al., 2011). Switzerland
has performed annual surveillance for MRSA in pigs since 2009 (Table 37: ). MRSA ST49 has persisted
in pigs over this monitoring period and, although it was initially reported from seven different farms, it
has not subsequently increased in prevalence, whereas it is noteworthy that those spa-types
associated with CC398 have shown a steady increase in prevalence. Data relating to colonisation by
MRSA CC398 in humans in European countries show a similar trend in some countries, for example,
an increase in MRSA CC398 cases as a proportion of all MRSA cases detected in nasopharyngeal
swabbing of patients at 39 hospitals from 14% in 2008 to 29% in 2012 was noted in north-western
Germany (Kck et al., 2013). In the Netherlands, 15% of human carriers of MRSA CC398 do not
report direct contact with pigs or veal calves; indirect transmission from animals or direct transmission
from colonised humans are possible sources (Lekkerkerk et al., 2015). Although LA-MRSA CC398 is
considered a poor coloniser of human (Graveland et al., 2010), it can cause serious, fatal infections in
humans, especially in patients who are prone to acquire staphylococcal infections (Berning et al.
2015). Berning et al. reported case details of two fatal infections, both of which occurred in persons
with direct links to pig farms or pig farming.
Considering the three broad epidemiological classes of MRSA (LA-MRSA, HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA),
spa-typing data confirms that spa-types associated with CC398 were most frequent and therefore,
livestock-associated MRSA remained the type of MRSA most frequently detected in food-producing
animals in 2014. Spa-types associated with healthcare-associated MRSA were much less frequent and
those associated with CA-MRSA were not reported. Where spa-typing data are not available, the
susceptibility of isolates may give some indication of the type of MRSA likely to have been detected,
because livestock-associated MRSA belonging to CC398 are usually resistant to tetracycline (Cromb
et al., 2013), although this is of course not a definitive characteristic because tetracycline resistance
also occurs in other strains of MRSA. Susceptibility data for MRSA isolates were provided by Belgium
and Switzerland who did not detect resistance to either vancomycin or linezolid, important
antimicrobials for treatment of human patients. The high proportion of MRSA isolates from pigs
showing resistance to tiamulin and trimethoprim presumably reflects the relatively common usage of
these compounds in pig medicine in many European countries.
Norway tested a large number of pig herds (N=986) in 2014, as part of a surveillance and eradication
programme for LA-MRSA (outlined at http://www.vetinst.no/eng/Surveillance-programmes/Swine-
MRSA). National eradication programmes for LA-MRSA have not been attempted in other European
countries. Norway has consistently demonstrated a very low/zero prevalence of MRSA-positive pig
25
Spa-type t899 can be associated with either MRSA ST9 or CC398.

herds in surveillance performed since 2008 and this situation is likely to be favourable to achieving the
goal of eradicating and then maintaining freedom from LA-MRSA. The eradication programme involves
slaughter and depopulation of affected herds, followed by thorough cleaning and disinfection and then
re-stocking with pigs free from LA-MRSA.
S. aureus isolates belonging to CC398 can be divided into human and animal lineages based on
characteristics including susceptibility to meticillin and tetracyclines (animal lineages are resistant;
human lineages are susceptible) and possession of the SA3 prophage, scn and chp virulence genes,
features which have been associated with the meticillin-susceptible lineages of CC398 affecting
humans (Smith and Wardyn, 2015, Chroboczek et al. 2013). The results reported here relate to MRSA
isolates from animals and food and considering the rapid developments which have occurred in recent
years relating to the occurrence of MRSA in animals and the emergence of LA-MRSA, it seems likely
that further evolution will occur. Spa-typing provides a convenient method for preliminary
characterisation of isolates described in this report, but may not always contain sufficient information
to fully interpret the significance of isolates.

3.5. Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in

Escherichia coli and Salmonella
Resistance to third-generation cephalosporins: the importance of extended-spectrum

beta-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC enzymes and carbapenemases
Occurrence of ESBLs and acquired AmpC (aAmpC) beta-lactamases is considered to be an
important emerging issue in Gram-negative bacteria of public health significance. ESBLs and AmpC
are enzymes that hydrolyse extended-spectrum betalactam antimicrobials. Bacteria which produce
ESBL/aAmpC enzymes are usually resistant to third-generation cephalosporins, which are critically
important antimicrobials for the treatment of systemic or invasive Gram-negative bacterial
infections in humans. Apart from their wide use to treat E. coli infections, these drugs play a
critical role in the treatment of certain invasive Salmonella infections, particularly in children and
immunosuppressed patients.
Enterobacteria may become resistant to third-generation cephalosporins by several different
mechanisms. Among these different mechanisms, the most common is the production of beta-
lactamases. These enzymes are encoded by genes which can be located on either plasmids (small
covalently closed circles of DNA), which can be transferred between bacteria (i.e. during bacterial
conjugation), or the chromosome. There are different types of beta-lactamase which can confer
resistance to third-generation cephalosporins. Based on structural similarities (aminoacid content)
they are subdivided into four classes, designated A to D: ESBL enzymes of the TEM, SHV and CTX-
M families belong to class A, ESBL enzymes of the OXA-family are included in Class D, while class
C includes the AmpC beta-lactamases. The beta-lactamase encoding genes can be chromosomal
and intrinsic i.e. present naturally in the bacterial species (often referred as chromosomal, c), or
acquired (a), gained by transfer between bacteria.
The occurrence of beta-lactamases in Salmonella and E. coli (both pathogens and commensals) is
mostly due to the acquisition of genes usually from other Enterobacteriaceae through transfer of
plasmids (conjugation) and in a lesser extent, bacteriophages acting as vectors (transduction), or
to the clonal spread of carrier bacteria. Wild-type Salmonella do not possess endogenous beta-
lactamase encoding genes. Although all four different types of beta-lactamase classes have been
found in Salmonella, within the EU, the most important mechanism of resistance to third-
generation cephalosporins in Salmonella is the production of ESBLs followed by the production of
aAmpCs. E. coli also possesses endogenous AmpC beta-lactamase encoding genes, that in some
circumstances can be activated (i.e. mutations in the promotor regions), and also confer resistance
to third-generation cephalosporins. As for Salmonella, the most frequent mechanism of resistance
to third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli is primarily the production of ESBLs, followed by that
of aAmpC. Commensal bacteria, such as indicator E. coli, may contribute to the dissemination of
ESBLs/aAmpC, as these resistance mechanisms are usually transferable.
The emergence during the last years of resistance to carbapenems, last line antimicrobials for
human medicine is considered as an important public health concern. Carbapenems are used for
the treatment of highly resistant infections in humans, including, for example, the treatment of
infections with Gram-negative bacteria producing ESBLs. Resistance to carbapenems in Gram-
negative bacteria is mainly related to the production of carbapenemases (beta-lactamases) and the
acquisition of carbapenemase encoding genes, although other mechanisms (i.e. related to cell
permeability) also exist. The most frequent beta-lactamases with carbapenemase activity can be
found in the class A (KPC), class D (OXA-type carbapenemases) and Class B (metallo beta-
lactamases like NDM, VIM and IMI) of Amblers classification. Although carbapenem antimicrobials
are not used in food-producing animals in the EU, resistance has occasionally been detected in
bacteria carried by animals (Woodford et al., 2013), and dissemination from humans to animals
directly or through environmental routes is suspected.

Considering the public health relevance of resistance to third-/fourth-generation cephalosporins, and

carbapenem compounds, the new legislation on harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in
food-producing animals and food (Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU) has laid down
the mandatory monitoring of resistance to representative substances of these antimicrobial classes in
Salmonella and indicator E. coli in 2014 onwards. All Salmonella and indicator E. coli isolates exhibiting
microbiological resistance to cefotaxime, ceftazidime or meropenem have had to be subsequently
subjected to further testing using a supplementary panel of substances to obtain more detailed
phenotypic characterisation of any resistance detected to third-generation cephalosporins and/or the
carbapenem compound meropenem.
Rationale for the choice of certain substances included in the supplementary panel
Cefotaxime and ceftazidime have been included in the supplementary panel because, although
most ESBL confer resistance to both compounds, some ESBL primarily confer resistance to one or
the other compound.
Confirmatory synergy testing has been also foreseen so that a presumptive ESBL phenotype may
be identified.
Cefoxitin has been also included so that a presumptive AmpC phenotype may be identified.
Meropenem, imipenem and ertapenem have been included so that putative carbapenemase
producers may be identified.
Temocillin (6--methoxy-ticarcillin) efficacy is unaffected by most ESBL and AmpC enzymes and
this substance may be particularly useful in human medicine to treat urinary tract infections caused
by ESBL-producing Gram-negative organisms (Livermore and Tulkens, 2009). Susceptibility to
temocillin enables further phenotypic characterisation of carbapenemases.
From the results of such further testing, it has thus been possible to infer the presumptive class of
beta-lactamase enzyme which was responsible for conferring the phenotypic profile of resistance to
third-generation cephalosporins or meropenem detected, providing additional epidemiological
information. This monitoring primarily addressed in this chapter was performed in accordance with the
legislation and did not utilise selective primary isolation media containing cephalosporins so the results
generally relate to organisms selected at random from primary culture media.
In 2014, the specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-/Carbapenemases-producing E. coli (by using
selective media containing cephalosporins) was also performed on a voluntary basis by a limited
number of reporting countries. The corresponding results have also been briefly presented below, and
the results of the routine and specific monitoring were put in perspective, if possible. Italy also
reported results of a specific monitoring of carbapenemase-producing microorganisms (by using
selective media containing carbapenems), performed voluntarily.
Identification of presumptive phenotypes of ESBL-, AmpC- and/or carbapenemase

producers (also see material and methods section)
To infer the presumptive class of beta-lactamase enzyme responsible for conferring the phenotypic
profile of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins or meropenem detected, the EUCAST
guidelines for detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical and/or
epidemiological importance (EUCAST, 2013) were applied. A screening breakpoint for cefotaxime
and/or ceftazidime (> 1 mg/L) was applied to screen for ESBL and AmpC-producers, as these isolates
typically (with only a few exceptions) show MICs for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime > 1 mg/L,
whereas different resistance mechanisms are expected in the resistant isolates (MIC > ECOFFs)
exhibiting MICs lower than the screening breakpoint. Some of the countries also voluntarily reported
results from the detection of ESBL-/AmpC-resistance genes in the third-generation cephalosporin
resistant isolates. These data were compared with the classifications made on the phenotypic basis.

3.5.1. Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in Salmonella

isolates from food and animals (routine monitoring)
In 2014, third-generation cephalosporin resistance was identified in a range of Salmonella serovars.
Occurrence data in Salmonella spp. are presented in Table 39 below and further results at the serovar
level are also tabulated in appendices.
Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in Salmonella from food
Resistance levels to carbapenems in Salmonella isolated from meat from broilers and turkeys
None of the Salmonella isolates from meat from broilers or turkeys were microbiologically resistant to
meropenem, ertapenem or imipenem.
Resistance levels to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella from broilers meat

In the eleven reporting MSs, resistance to cefotaxime or ceftazidime in Salmonella spp. isolates from
broiler meat was either not detected or reported at low levels (Table SALMBRMEATD) in Belgium
(three isolates resistant to cefotaxime, two isolates resistant to ceftazidime, accounting for 3.7% and
2.5% of the isolates tested, respectively) and in Spain (one isolate resistant to both antimicrobials,
representing 0.8% of the isolates tested) (Table SALMBRMEATD).
The resistant isolates belonged to serovars S. Enteritidis (Table ENTERBRMEATD), S. Paratyphi and
S. Cerro. Resistance to cefotaxime or ceftazidime was not detected in S. Infantis, S. Kentucky,
S. Indiana isolates from meat from broilers (Table INFANBRMEATD, KENTUBRMEATD,
INDIANABRMEATD).
Resistance levels to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella from turkey meat
In the three reporting MSs, no Salmonella isolates from turkey meat were resistant to cefotaxime or
ceftazidime in 2014 (Table SALMTURKMEATD) and therefore, no supplementary beta-lactam or
carbapenem susceptibility testing was performed on isolates.
Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in Salmonella from animals
Resistance levels to carbapenems in Salmonella from flocks of broilers, laying hens and turkeys
None of the Salmonella isolates from broiler, laying hen and turkey flocks which were subjected to
supplementary testing were microbiologically resistant to ertapenem, imipenem or meropenem.
Resistance levels to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella from broiler flocks

Low levels of resistance to cefotaxime at 2.3% and to ceftazidime at 2.6% were reported in
Salmonella spp. isolates from all reporting MSs, reflecting either no or very low to low resistance
recorded in nearly all reporting countries (Table SALMBRD). Only Italy and the Netherlands recorded
much higher levels of resistance to both antimicrobials (above 10.0%), whereas Malta recorded a
resistance to ceftazidime above 10.0%.
The resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in S. Enteritidis isolates from broilers was generally not
detected in reporting MSs (Table ENTERBRD). Resistance to both cefotaxime and ceftazidime in
S. Enteritidis was reported only by Portugal in 1/9 isolates tested.
Resistance levels to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella from laying hen flocks
The levels of resistance in laying hen flocks were generally lower than those reported in broiler flocks.
In Salmonella spp. from laying hens, only three MSs (France, Poland and Romania) detected
resistance to third-generation cephalosporins out of the 15 reporting MSs, respectively.
Considering isolates from laying hens resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in S. Enteritidis was
detected by Poland (Table ENTERLAYD). S. Typhimurium isolates from laying hens
(Table TYPHILAYD) were tested by 17 MSs; none of the reporting countries detected resistance to
cefotaxime or to ceftazidime in S. Typhimurium.

Resistance levels to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella from fattening turkey flocks
There were no Salmonella isolates from turkey flocks which were resistant to cefotaxime or
ceftazidime in the nine reporting MSs in 2014 (Table SALMFATTURKD) and therefore, no
supplementary beta-lactam susceptibility testing was performed on isolates.
Resistance phenotypes identified in Salmonella spp. from broiler flocks

Salmonella spp. isolates with a presumptive ESBL phenotype were detected in broiler flocks in five
MSs and of these, 10% (3/30) demonstrated synergy only with cefotaxime (Table 40). The proportion
of Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler flocks exhibiting a presumptive ESBL phenotype was low in all
countries, except in Italy, where 25.8% of Salmonella spp. isolates showed a presumptive ESBL
phenotype. Three MSs reported isolates with a presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotype in broilers and
six MSs reported isolates with a presumptive AmpC phenotype, including the Netherlands, which
registered moderate numbers of isolates (12.5%) having a presumptive AmpC phenotype. A
presumptive AmpC phenotype was detected in laying hen flocks at a low level by three MSs and in
meat from broilers at a very low level by one MS, with a further MS reporting a presumptive AmpC
and ESBL phenotype.
Most Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler flocks exhibiting a presumptive ESBL phenotype belonged
to S. Infantis (60%, 18/30) with S. Paratyphi B var. Java comprising a further 20% (6/30).
Considering those isolates with a presumptive AmpC phenotype, 50% (9/18) belonged to
S. Heidelberg, whereas single isolates of S. Infantis and S. Paratyphi B var. Java had a presumptive
AmpC phenotype. Salmonella spp. from broiler flocks with a presumptive AmpC and ESBL phenotype
included three isolates of S. Infantis and a single isolate of S. Enteritidis (Table ENTERBRD).
Three Salmonella isolates from laying hen flocks with a presumptive AmpC phenotype belonged to
serovars S. Enteritidis, S. Anatum and S. Glostrup.
Table 39: Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam compounds in Salmonella spp. isolates from
subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014
Total number of Number subjected to supplementary testing and number resistant(a)

Country Salmonella spp. Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Cefoxitin Cefepime(b) Temocillin(c)
tested N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res
Meat from broilers
Belgium 81 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 0
Hungary 47 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Spain 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Total (MSs 3) 258 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 0
Broilers
Belgium 167 7 7 7 6 7 1 7 7 7 0
Cyprus 45 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 1
Czech Republic 212 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Hungary 169 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
Ireland 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Italy 66 18 18 18 17 18 1 18 18 18 0
Netherlands 88 15 15 15 15 15 11 15 14 15 0
Portugal 51 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Romania 554 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0
Spain 135 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 0
Total (MSs 10) 1,503 55 52 55 50 55 22 55 51 55 2
Laying hens
France 86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Poland 45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Romania 46 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total (MSs 3) 177 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1
ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off values; N: number of isolates tested; n Res: number of the isolates resistant; MSs: Member
States.
(a): No resistance to carbapenems was reported.
(b): Interpretive cut-off applied for cefepime: > 0.125mg/L.
(c): Interpretive cut-off applied for temocillin: > 32 mg/L.

Table 40: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers, laying hens and meat from broilers collected within
the routine monitoring and subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014(a)
Country Total Number of Presumptive Resistance Phenotype

number Salmonella ESBL ESBL
of with ESBL(b) with clavulanic-SYN only with clavulanic-SYN AmpC(e) AmpC + ESBL(f)
Salmonella supplementary for CTX(c) only for CAZ(d)
tested testing n %(g) n %(g) n %(g) n %(g) n %(g)
Meat from Broilers
Belgium 81 3 2(h) 2.5
Spain 130 1 1 0.8
Broiler flocks
Belgium 167 7 6 3.6 2 1.2 1 0.6
Cyprus 45 4 2 4.4 2 4.4
Czech Republic 212 1(h) 1 0.5
Ireland 16 1 1 6.3
Italy 66 18(h) 17 25.8 1 1.5 1 1.5
Netherlands 88 15 4 4.5 11 12.5
Portugal 51 1 1 1.9
Romania 554 2 2 0.4
Spain 135 3(h) 1 0.7 2 1.5
Total MSs 9 1,334 52 30 2.2 3 0.2 18 1.3 4 0.29
Norway 1 1
Laying hen flocks
France 86 1 1 1.2
Poland 45 1 1 2.2
Romania 46 1 1 2.2
Total MSs 3 177 3 3 1.7
ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; n= isolates with this phenotype; %: percentage of isolates with this phenotype from the total tested; SYN: synergy; CTX: cefotaxime; CAZ: ceftazidime;
MSs: Member States
(a): According to EUCAST Guidelines (EUCAST, 2013), only isolates showing an MIC > 1 mg/ml for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime (screening breakpoint) were considered (see Chapter 1.2.5).
(b): All isolates with an ESBL phenotype, i.e. showing clavulanate synergy with cefotaxime or ceftazidime or synergy with both compounds.
(c): Isolates showing synergy with cefotaxime only, suggesting the presence of an ESBL with cefotaximase activity.
(d): Isolates showing synergy with ceftazidime only, suggesting the presence of an ESBL with ceftazidimase activity.
(e): Isolates with microbiological resistance to cefoxitin.
(f): Isolates showing synergy with cefotaxime or ceftazidime and with microbiological resistance to cefoxitin
(g): Percentage of the total number of Salmonella isolates tested (with panel 1).
(h): Molecular data were reported. For Belgium, only data for the meat isolates were reported, being both isolates positive for CTX-M enzymes with an MIC =16 mg/L for cefoxitin. Regarding the
poultry isolates: for the Czech Republic, the isolate was in fact CMY-2 positive; for Italy, all isolates were CTX-M positive, one of them also with a MIC =16 for cefoxitin. For Spain, one isolate
was positive for CTX-M, the other two isolates for CMY-2 encoding genes.

3.5.2. Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in indicator

Escherichia coli isolates from food and animals (routine monitoring)
Third-generation cephalosporin resistance in indicator E. coli isolates from food

For 2014, Denmark reported results on resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in indicator E. coli
isolates from meat from broilers, pigs and bovine animals, whereas Germany reported data on meat
from broilers and meat from turkeys. Overall, resistance to third-generation cephalosporins was either
not detected or reported at low levels ranging, between 0.7% and 5.9% (Table ESCHEMEAT).
Third-generation cephalosporin resistance in indicator E. coli isolates from animals

Resistance to cefotaxime, ceftazidime and carbapenem compounds, and presumptive ESBL and AmpC
phenotypes identified in indicator E. coli isolates from broilers
Resistance to cefotaxime in indicator E. coli isolates from broilers were reported by 27 reporting MSs
and Norway (Table ESCHEBR and Table 41). The levels of resistance recorded were generally low,
although Malta, Slovakia and Spain observed moderate levels of resistance in broilers, whereas
Cyprus, Latvia and Lithuania registered high resistance levels, above 30%. In Bulgaria, Denmark,
Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was not detected
in isolates from broilers. Overall, resistance levels in reporting countries were low at 5.1% for
cefotaxime and 5.0% for ceftazidime.
Ertapenem-resistant indicator E. coli isolates from broilers (Table 41) were reported by Lithuania (3
isolates), Latvia (1), Poland (1), Slovakia (1), Slovenia (1) and Spain (2) and each of these isolates
exhibited a presumptive AmpC or ESBL phenotype (Table 42). Loss of porins in conjunction with ESBL
or AmpC enzyme production is therefore considered to account for resistance to ertapenem in the
absence of resistance to the other carbapenems tested.
Indicator E. coli isolates with a presumptive ESBL phenotype were detected in broilers from 21 MSs
and Norway. Significant numbers of isolates showed synergy with only one of the two indicator
cephalosporins (cefotaxime and ceftazidime) used in combination with clavulanate to detect synergy.
The proportion of all E. coli isolates from broilers with a presumptive ESBL phenotype was low or very
low in most countries, except Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Spain, where more than
10% of the indicator E. coli isolates tested had a presumptive ESBL phenotype. Four MSs reported
E. coli with both a presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotype from broilers, whereas 14 MSs reported
isolates with a presumptive AmpC phenotype, although the proportion of total E. coli with this
phenotype was less than 10% in all MSs, except Lithuania, where it was 22.4% (Table 42).
Resistance to cefotaxime, ceftazidime and carbapenem compounds, and presumptive ESBL and AmpC
phenotypes identified in E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys
Data on resistance in indicator E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys were reported by 11 reporting
MSs. The levels of resistance recorded for third generation cephalosporins were generally low;
Romania and the United Kingdom did not detect any resistance. Overall, resistance levels in reporting
countries were lower in fattening turkeys than in those from broilers, at 2.3% for cefotaxime and
2.2% for ceftazidime (Table ESCHETURK and Table 43).
A single ertapenem-resistant indicator E. coli isolate was reported by France and this isolate exhibited
a presumptive AmpC phenotype (Table 44). Loss of porins in conjunction with AmpC enzyme
production is therefore considered to account for resistance to ertapenem in the absence of resistance
to the other carbapenems tested.
Indicator E. coli isolates with a presumptive ESBL phenotype were detected in fattening turkeys in six
MSs and three non-MSs. Significant numbers of isolates showed synergy with cefotaxime only. The
proportion of all E. coli isolates from broilers with a presumptive ESBL phenotype was low or very low
in most countries, except in Spain where 10% of the E. coli sampled exhibited a presumptive ESBL
phenotype. Three MSs reported E. coli isolates with a presumptive AmpC phenotype in fattening
turkeys, although those isolates accounted for less than 2% of indicator E. coli investigated in each
MS. No presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotype was detected in fattening turkeys (Table 44).

Table 41: Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam and carbapenem compounds in indicator E. coli isolates from broiler flocks collected within the routine
monitoring and subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014
Country Total number Number subjected to supplementary testing and number resistant
of Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Cefoxitin Cefepime Ertapenem Temocillin
E. coli tested N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res
Austria 176 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0
Belgium 158 13 13 13 12 13 5 13 11 13 0 13 0
Croatia 170 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Cyprus 87 35 28 35 26 35 15 35 25 35 0 35 0
Czech Republic 196 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2
Estonia 71 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 0 3 0
France 226 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 0 9 0
Germany 227 5 3 5 3 5 1 5 3 5 0 5 0
Greece 172 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 0
Hungary 170 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 0 5 0
Ireland 167 7 7 7 6 7 2 7 7 7 0 7 0
Italy 170 11 11 11 9 11 3 11 11 11 0 11 0
Latvia 147 48 45 48 43 48 15 48 40 48 1 48 0
Lithuania 85 32 27 32 31 32 20 32 24 32 3 32 0
Netherlands 377 10 10 10 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 10 0
Poland 179 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 4 0
Portugal 201 11 11 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 0 11 0
Romania 859 15 15 15 15 15 8 15 10 15 0 15 0
Slovakia 86 16 11 16 6 16 4 16 11 16 1 16 0
Slovenia 85 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 6 8 1 8 0
Spain 170 25 25 25 25 25 7 25 25 25 2 25 0
Total (21 MSs) 4,179 267 245 267 234 267 98 267 222 267 9 267 2
Norway 205 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0
No E. coli isolates from broilers were resistant to meropenem.
Interpretive cut-off applied for temocillin: > 32 mg/L.
ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off values; N: number of the isolates tested; n Res: number of the isolates resistant; MSs: Member States

Table 42: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in indicator E. coli isolates from broiler flocks collected within the routine monitoring and
subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014(a)
Country Total number Number of Presumptive Resistance Phenotype
of E. coli E. coli with (b) ESBL with clavulanic-SYN ESBL with clavulanic-SYN
ESBL AmpC(e) AmpC + ESBL(f)
tested supplementary only for CTX(c) only for CAZ(d)
testing n %(g) n % (g)
n %(g) n %(g) n %(g)
Austria 176 2 2 1.1 2 1.1
Belgium 158 13(h) 7 4.4 2 1.3 1 0.6 5 3.2
Croatia 170 1 1 0.6 1 0.6
Cyprus 87 35 13 14.9 8 9.2 8 9.2 7 8.0
Czech Republic 196 2(i) 2 1.0
Estonia 71 3(h) 1 1.4 1 1.4
France 226 9 9 4.0 3 1.3 1 0.4
Germany 227 5 3 1.3 2 0.9
Greece 172 5 3 1.7 2 1.2 2 1.2
Hungary 170 5 2 1.2 1 0.6 1 0.6 3 1.8
Ireland 167 7(h) 4 2.4 3 1.8 2 1.2
Italy 170 11(i) 8 4.7 2 1.2 1 0.6 3 1.8
Latvia 147 48 30 20.4 8(j) 5.4 8 5.4 7 4.8 8 5.4
Lithuania 85 32(j) 12 14.1 5 5.9 3 3.5 19(j) 22.4 1 1.2
Netherlands 377 10 10 2.7 4 1.1
Poland 179 4 1 0.6 3(j) 1.7
Portugal 201 11 10 5.0 1 0.5 1 0.5
Romania 859 15(h) 6 0.7 8 0.9
Slovakia 86 16 9 10.5 6 7.0 2(j) 2.3
Slovenia 85 8 1 1.2 7(j) 8.2
Spain 170 25(i,j) 18 10.6 2 1.2 3 1.8 4 2.4
Total (21 MSs) 4,179 267 152 3.6 51 1.2 17 0.4 73 1.7 20 0.5
ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; n= isolates with this phenotype; %: percentage of isolates from the total tested; SYN: synergy; CTX: cefotaxime; CAZ: ceftazidime; MSs: Member States.
(a): According to EUCAST Guidelines (EUCAST, 2013), only isolates showing an MIC > 1 mg/ml for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime (screening breakpoint) were considered (see Chapter 1.2.5).
(f): Isolates showing synergy with cefotaxime or ceftazidime and with microbiological resistance to cefoxitin. nel 1).
(g): Percentage of the total number of E. coli isolates tested (with panel 1).
(h): Isolates microbiologically resistant to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime but with MIC =< 1 mg/L for both antimicrobials (suggesting the presence of other mechanisms, but not further classified)
were reported by Belgium (1 isolate), Romania (1), Estonia (2) and Ireland (1).
(i): Molecular data were reported by the Czech Republic, Italy, and Spain. Almost all isolates were reported as positive the ESBL CTX-M, SHV, TEM- or AmpC CMY-2 encoding genes tested,
according to their phenotypes. For Italy, one isolate reported positive for SHV showed an MIC = 16 mg/L (suggesting the presence of a chromosomal AmpC) but no synergy, thus was classified
in the AmpC-phenotype group and not in the putative ESBL- nor ESBL+AmpC-phenotypes ones. For Spain, the isolates classified in the ESBL+AmpC phenotype groups, showed a cefoxitin
MIC = 16 mg/L, suggesting the presence of cAMPc together with the CTX-M reported. Two of the three Spanish isolates exhibiting AmpC phenotype were reported as CMY-2 positive, but, for
the third isolate placed in this group because of exhibiting an MIC = 64 mg/L for cefoxitin and no synergy, no CMY-2 encoding gene was reported.
(j): Included isolates with ertapenem resistance (MIC = 0.12-0.25 mg/L).

Table 43: Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam and carbapenem compounds in indicator E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys collected within the
routine monitoring and subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014
Country Total number Number subjected to supplementary testing and number resistant
of E. coli tested Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Cefoxitin Cefepime Ertapenem Temocillin
N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res N n Res
Austria 125 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0
France 238 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Germany 170 6 4 6 3 6 0 6 4 6 0 6 0
Hungary 170 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 4 0 4 0
Italy 170 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0
Poland 170 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0
Portugal 185 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0
Spain 170 17 17 17 17 17 0 17 17 17 0 17 0
Sweden 59 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Total MSs (9) 1,457 41 37 41 35 41 6 41 36 41 0 41 0
No E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys were resistant to imipenem or meropenem.
Interpretive cut-off applied for temocillin: > 32 mg/L.
ECOFFs: epidemiological cut-off value; MSs: Member States.

Table 44: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in indicator E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys collected within the routine monitoring and
subjected to supplementary testing (panel 2) in 2014(a)
Country Total number Number of Presumptive Resistance Phenotype

of E. coli tested indicator E. coli with (b ESBL ESBL
ESBL AmpC +
supplementary ) with clavulanic- SYN only for with clavulanic-SYN AmpC(e)
ESBL(f)
testing CTX(c) only for CAZ)(d)
n %(g) n % (g)
n %(g) n %(g) n %(g)
(h)
Austria 125 2 1 0.8
France 238 1 1(i) 0.4
Germany 170 6 4 2.4 1 0.6
Hungary 170 4 1 0.6 1 0.6 2 1.2
Italy 170 2(j) 2 1.2 2 1.2
Poland 170 3 3 1.8
Portugal 185 5 5 2.7
Spain 170 17(j) 17 10.0 1 0.6
Sweden 59 1
Total MSs (9) 1,457 41 30 2.1 5 0.3 6 0.4
MSs: Member States.
(a): According to EUCAST Guidelines (EUCAST, 2013), only isolates showing an MIC > 1 mg/L for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime (screening breakpoint) were considered (see chapter 1.2.5).
(f): Isolates showing synergy with cefotaxime or ceftazidime and with microbiological resistance to cefoxitin.
(h): One isolate was microbiologically resistant to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime but with MIC =< 1 mg/L for both antimicrobials (not further classified).
(i): This isolate also showed resistance to ertapenem (MIC = 0.012 mg/L)
(j): Molecular data were reported. For Italy, both isolates showing an ESBL-phenotype were found positive for CTX-M encoding genes. For Spain, all isolates were found positive for SHV ESBLs,
excepting one isolate positive for CTX-M.

3.5.3. Specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli

In certain types of monitoring, selective media containing cephalosporins may be used to investigate
the presence or absence of cephalosporin-resistant organisms in a particular sample (within the limit
of detection) and, in that case, a different type of result would be obtained from such monitoring,
which has a greater sensitivity. For 2014, the specific ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing
monitoring was performed on a voluntary basis by four MSs and 2 non-MSs (Table 48, Table 49,
Table 50. Finland, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden, and Iceland and Switzerland reported data on specific
monitoring in broilers. Italy and Sweden reported data on specific monitoring in turkeys.
Finland and Sweden reported data on the results obtained for both antimicrobial resistance Panels
(Panel 1 and Panel 2). Slovenia reported results only for Panel 2. Italy reported data for results
obtained with Panel 1 and positive results from the molecular data analyses. Switzerland reported
data on isolates collected from caecal swabs, whereas the rest of the MSs/non-MSs reported data
from caecum samples (Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652). Sweden also provided positive
results from molecular data analyses.
The prevalence of ESBL/AmpC in the samples analysed within the specific monitoring was not
assessed, as data on positive/negative samples were not collected by EFSA mandatorily in 2014, and
all but one (Italy) reporting countries did not provide with the data. Thus, only occurrence of ESBLs
vs. AmpC is presented below (Table 50).
Voluntarily reported results from Italy derived from thespecific carbapenemase-producing
microorganism monitoring, the specific ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing monitoring (on E. coli
but also for Salmonella spp.) and the assessment of the prevalence of ESBL-,AmpC- and
carbapenemase-producers in the samples analysed, are presented in a specific text box below,
Specific ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli monitoring in broilers

Although Finland, Iceland and Sweden did not detect any cephalosporin/carbapenem resistance in the
E. coli isolates from broilers tested within the framework of the mandatory routine monitoring,
cephalosporin resistant isolates were recovered by performing the specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-
/carbapenemase-producing E. coli. In Sweden (72 isolates tested) and Iceland (3 isolates tested),
almost only presumptive AmpC phenotype (98.6% and 100%, respectively) was present in the
isolates analysed. In Finland (25 isolates analysed), both presumptive AmpCphenotype (60%) and
ESBLphenotype (44%) were frequent among the isolates analysed. The presumptive ESBL+AmpC-
phenotype was also present among the isolates tested.
Slovenia reported eight E. coli isolates resistant to third-generation cephalosporins recovered within
the routine monitoring in broilers. Most of these isolates showed an AmpCphenotype (87.5% vs
12.5% with an ESBL phenotype). Conversely, when performing specific ESBL-/AmpC-
/Carbapenemase-producing monitoring, most of the 28 isolates analysed showed a presumptive ESBL
phenotype (96.4% vs none with an AmpC phenotype).
Switzerland reported seven E. coli isolates resistant to third-generation cephalosporins recovered from
the routine monitoring in broilers (42.8% and 28.5% ESBL- and AmpC-phenotype, respectively). From
specific monitoring, 124 isolates were analysed, with 55.6%, 44.3% and 4% of them exhibiting a
presumptive ESBL-, AmpC- of ESBL+AmpC-phenotype, respectively.
In the isolates recovered from the specific monitoring ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli
in broilers, low ertapenem resistance (MIC = 0.0120.25 mg/L) was reported in Finland (1 isolate),
Slovenia (3) and Switzerland (22), and each of these isolates exhibited a presumptive AmpC or ESBL
phenotype.
Specific ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli monitoring in turkeys

Sweden reported data on 12 isolates collected within this specific monitoring in turkeys, five of them
showing a presumptive AmpC phenotype (with MIC = 16 mg/L for cefoxitin) and none of them a
presumptive ESBL phenotype (Table 50).

Specific monitorings of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing and carbapenemase-

producing E. coli and Salmonella in broilers and fattening turkeys in Italy in 2014
In Italy, the specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing E. coli and Salmonella in
caecal samples from broilers and fattening turkeys at slaughter was performed and reported on a
voluntary basis in 2014, in accordance with the Commission Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU and
using the caecal samples investigated for Campylobacter spp. under that Decision.
The objectives were (1) to assess the occurrence of extended spectrum cephalosporin resistant-(ESC-
R) and carbapenemase-resistant (CPE-R) Salmonella spp. and E. coli in broilers and fattening turkeys
in a context of increasing trends of ESC-R Salmonella occurrence within the Salmonella National
Control Programme in broilers and (2) to provide a comparison with the occurrence of ESC-R and
CPE-R Enterobacteriaceae in humans, as recently reported (ECDC, 2013). Samples were examined by
the NRL-AR in accordance with the protocols developed by the EURL-AR. Suspect ESC-R or CPE-R
isolates were further investigated to confirm the phenotype of resistance observed by consensus
international molecular methods.
Specific monitoring of carbapenemase-producing E. coli

No carbapenemase-producing E. coli were detected in broilers or fattening turkeys (see table below).
Table 45: Prevalence of carbapenemase-producing E. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys
collected within the specific carbapenemase-producing microorganisms monitoring in
Italy in 2014
Poultry Number of caecal Number of caecal samples tested Prevalence

population samples tested on positive for (95% CI)
selective culture media carbapenemase-producing E. coli
Broilers 300 0 0.0% (0.0, 1.2)
Fattening turkeys 300 0 0.0% (0.0, 1.2)
This study provides baseline information of utmost interest, as in Italy, CPE-R Enterobacteriaceae in
humans are widespread and are currently considered a major burden among healthcare-associated
infectious diseases.
Specific monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-producing E. coli

ESC-R E. coli were confirmed as ESBL-/AmpC-producing E. coli by performing relevant Polymerase
Chain Reaction (PCR) tests. Corresponding prevalence in broilers and fattening turkeys is shown in the
table below.
Table 46: Prevalence of ESBL-/AmpC-producing E. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys within
the specific ESBL-/AmpC-producing E. coli monitoring in Italy in 2014

selective culture media ESBL-/AmpC-producing E. coli
Broilers 300 244(a) 81.3% (76.5, 85.6)
Fattening turkeys 300 224(b) 74.7% (69.5, 79.5)
(a): Nearly 86% were ESBL-producing E. coli, with 69% harbouring genes of the CTX-M family (mostly encoding the enzyme
CTX-M-1). Transferable AmpC genes, encoding CMY-2, were found in 13.1% of isolates. All isolates had MICs indicating
clinical resistance to cefotaxime or ceftazidime. Among these ESC-R isolates, 95.1% were multi-drug resistant.
(b): Nearly 96% were ESBL-producing E. coli, with 73% harbouring genes of the CTX-M family (mostly encoding the enzyme
CTX-M-1). Transferable AmpC genes, encoding CMY-2, were found in 2.7% of isolates. All isolates had MICs above the
Ecoffs and all isolates, except two, had MICs also in the range of clinical resistance for cefotaxime or ceftazidime. Among
these ESC-R isolates, 90.2% were multi-drug resistant.
It should be noted that, when using selective culture methods, the occurrence of ESBL/AmpC-
producing E. coli in broilers and fattening turkeys is assessed with much greater sensitivity than when
using non-selective culture methods. Considering randomly selected isolates of indicator commensal
E. coli (n=170) from the same caecal samples, cultured on non-selective media, the occurrence of

ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli was 6.47% (11/170) in broilers and 1.18% (2/170) in turkeys,
respectively.
The difference is most likely explained by the fact that the ESC-R population may be still sub-
dominant among the E. coli populations in the gut flora of these food-producing animals, so that the
probability of randomly picking an ESC-R E. coli from non-selective agar plates is not high for the
majority of samples tested.
Third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins have never been licensed for use in poultry in Italy, and
off-label use is currently prohibited, according to the EU legislation. Selection pressure exerted by the
use of high amounts of other antimicrobial classes ( e.g. tetracyclines, sulfonamides, aminopenicillins,
(fluoro)quinolones), may also contribute to co-selection of ESC-R, since ESC-R isolates can show
multiple drug resistance.
Monitoring of ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-producing Salmonella at slaughter
Cultures for Salmonella spp. according to the ISO standards were also performed on the samples
collected according to Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU. All isolates were serotyped
and susceptibility tested, with molecular confirmation of phenotype by PCR.
Table 47: Prevalence of ESBL-/AmpC-producing Salmonella from broilers and fattening turkeys
within national specific ESBL-/AmpC-producing Salmonella monitoring in Italy in 2014

selective culture ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemase-
media producing Salmonella
Broilers 709 90 12.7% (10.3, 15.4)
Fattening turkeys 558 146 26.2% (22.6, 30.0)
A total 89 isolates from broilers were available for AST testing. No CPE-R Salmonella was detected
(prevalence: 0.0%, 95% CI: 0.0, 0.52%). ESC-R isolates comprised 3.37% of the total (3/89), and
were multiresistant serovar Infantis isolates. This serovar represented 75% of all isolates detected in
the survey. S. Infantis is also the most frequent serovar reported as ESC-R among isolates tested in
the national control programme (NCP) in broiler chicken (27.27% ESC-R in 2014, the vast majority of
which are due to an emerging ESBL, CTX-M-1-producing S. Infantis clone).
A total 145 isolates from turkeys were available for AST testing. ESC-R isolates were 0.69% (1/145), a
low figure which is in agreement with susceptibility data from the NCP in turkeys.
Although the data sets from the two different types of study (survey at slaughter vs. NCP) are not
directly comparable, monitoring trends in AMR in Salmonella spp. (including MDR and resistance to
Critically Important Antimicrobials), using both approaches (Census and Objective sampling strategies)
may contribute to provide a more accurate picture of the epidemiology of AMR in Salmonella spp. in
Italy.

Table 48: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Escherichia coli from broilers and fattening turkeys in reporting countries collected within
thespecific ESBL-/Ampc-/carbapenemase-producing monitoring (Panel 1), in 2014
Country Ampicillin Azithromycin Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Chloramphenicol Ciprofloxacin Colistin

Broilers
Finland 25 100 25 0 25 100 25 96 25 0 25 52.0 25 0
Italy 244 100 244 4.1 244 100 244 84.4 244 55.3 244 75.4 244 5.3
Sweden 72 100 72 0 72 100 72 100 72 0 72 9.7 72 0
Total (MSs 3) 341 100 341 2.9 341 100 341 88.6 341 39.6 341 59.8 341 3.8
Iceland 3 100 3 0 3 100 3 100 3 0 3 0 3 0
Switzerland 124 100 124 0 124 100 124 91.1 124 18.5 124 44.4 124 0
Fattening turkeys
Italy 224 100 224 7.6 224 100 224 85.7 224 40.6 224 77.7 224 25.9
Sweden 12 100 12 0 12 100 12 100 12 0 12 0 12 0
Total (MSs 2) 236 100 236 7.2 236 100 236 86.4 236 38.6 236 73.7 236 24.6

Broilers
Finland 25 0 25 52 25 40 25 52 25 0 25 16
Italy 244 10.2 244 68 244 91.8 244 80.7 244 0.4 244 61.1
Sweden 72 0 72 6.9 72 19.4 72 9.7 72 0 72 0
Total (MSs 3) 341 7.3 341 54 341 72.7 341 63.6 341 0.3 341 44.9
Iceland 3 0 3 0 . . 3 0 3 0 3 0
Switzerland 124 0 124 39.5 124 62.1 124 53.2 124 0 124 30.6
Fattening turkeys
Italy 224 17.9 224 68.3 224 81.7 224 86.2 224 0 224 62.5
Sweden 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 100 12 0 12 0
Total (MSs 2) 236 16.9 236 64.8 236 77.5 236 86.9 236 0 236 59.3
All E. coli isolates tested were susceptible to meropenem.
ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; N: number of the isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates; MS: Member States.

Table 49: Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Escherichia coli from broilers and fattening turkeys in reporting countries collected within
the specific ESBL-/Ampc-/carbapenemase-producing monitoring (Panel 1), in 2014
Country Cefepime Cefotaxime Cefoxitin Ceftazidime Ertapenem Imipenem Meropenem Temocillin

N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res
Broilers
Finland 25 80.0 25 100 25 44.0 25 96.0 25 4.0 25 0 25 0 25 0
Italy 28 100 28 100 28 0 28 96.4 28 0 28 0 28 0 28 0
Sweden 72 56.9 72 100 72 98.6 72 100 72 11.1 72 0 72 0 72 0
Total (MSs 3) 125 71.2 125 100 125 65.6 125 98.4 125 7.2 125 0 125 0 125 0
Iceland 3 100 3 100 3 100 3 100 3 0 3 0
Switzerland 124 85.5 124 100 124 44.4 124 91.1 124 17.7 124 0 124 0 124 0
Fattening turkeys
Sweden 12 8.3 12 100 12 41.7 12 91.7 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0
Interpretive cut-off applied for temocillin: > 32 mg/L
ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; N: number of the isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates; : no information available; MSs: Member States

Table 50: Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in E. coli isolates from meat from broilers, broilers and fattening turkeys collected within the
specific ESBL-/Ampc-/carbapenemase-producing monitoring and subjected to supplementary testing or molecular typing confirmation in 2014 (a)
Country Total Presumptive Resistance Phenotype

number (b) ESBL with clavulanic- ESBL with clavulanic-
ESBL AmpC(e) AmpC + ESBL(f)
of E. coli SYN only for CTX(c) SYN only for CAZ)(d)
tested n %(g) n % (g)
n %(g) n %(g) n %(g)
Meat from broilers
Slovenia 20 20 100 5 25.0 4 20.0 - - - -
Iceland 4(h) - - - - - - 4 100 - -
Switzerland 232(h) 107 46.1 48 20.7 25 10.8 122 52.6 - -
Broilers
Finland 25 15 60.0 7 28.0 1 4.0 11 44.0 1 4.0
Italy 244(i) 209 85.6 - - 32 13.11
Slovenia 28(h) 27 96.4 8 28.6 7 25.0
Sweden 72(i) 1 1.4 1 1.4 71 98.6
Total MSs 4 341 252 73.9 - - - - 114 33.4 1 0.3
Iceland 3 - - - - - - 3 100 - -
Switzerland 124(h) 69 55.6 32 25.8 11 8.9 55 44.3 5 4.0
Fattening turkeys
Italy 224(i) 215 96.0 - - - - 6 2.7 - -
Sweden 12(h) - - - - - - 5 41.7 - -
Total MSs 2 236 215 91.1 - - - - 11 4.7 - -
MSs: Member States
(a): According to EUCAST Guidelines (EUCAST, 2013), only isolates showing an MIC > 1 mg/L for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime (screening breakpoint) were considered (see Chapter 1.2.5).
(f): Isolates showing synergy with cefotaxime or ceftazidime and with microbiological resistance to cefoxitin. Most of these isolates exhibited a MIC=16 mg/L for cefoxitin, suggesting the expression
of a cAmpC.
(h): Isolates with other phenotype: Isolates showing an MIC >1 mg/L for cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime but without synergy with clavulanic acid nor resistance to cefoxitin were reported by
Sweden (5 isolates from turkeys). Isolates microbiologically resistant to cefotaxime and/or ceftazidime but with MIC =< 1 mg/L for both antimicrobials (not further classified) were reported by
Switzerland (12 from broiler meat; 5 from broiler) and Slovenia (1 isolate from broiler)
(i): Molecular data were reported. For Italy, all isolates, excepting three from broilers and three from turkeys, were found positive for the ESBL CTX-M, SHV, TEM- or AmpC CMY-2 encoding genes
tested. For Sweden, all isolates from poultry, excepting one isolate with AmpC-phenotype (cefoxitin MIC = 32) were confirmed positive for CMY-2 or CTX-M.

3.5.4. Comparison of cefotaxime resistance in Salmonella spp. and indicator

Escherichia coli isolates from animals
Indicator commensal E. coli in healthy animals may constitute a reservoir of resistance genes which
can be transferred to zoonotic organisms, such as Salmonella, and this process may be particularly
enhanced in some circumstances, for example, under selection pressure resulting from antimicrobial
usage. Once Salmonella isolates have acquired plasmids carrying genes conferring resistance to third-
generation cephalosporins (either ESBL or AmpC resistance genes), the dissemination of such
resistant Salmonella clones (clonal spread) will also play a major part in influencing the occurrence of
third-generation cephalosporin resistance. Clonal spread of resistant Salmonella can occur subsequent
to the acquisition of cephalosporin resistance genes and for reasons other than the selective pressure
of usage of antimicrobials, for example, through animal movements or because resistance has
occurred at the top of production pyramids in breeding animals. There are also differences in the way
that E. coli and Salmonella are obtained for sampling in the monitoring programme and in the
diversity of strains which occur in the intestine of animals. Thus, E. coli are present in a diverse array
of strains, one of which is chosen from non-selective culture plates for further examination, whereas
Salmonella tends to occur not as multiple different serovars in each animal but as one or a few single
serovars in a flock, which is recovered from the animals using a Salmonella selective agar.
Considering the prevalence of resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in MSs to Salmonella spp. and
E. coli in all species for which relevant data are available, in all reporting MSs where resistance was
detected in 2014, the prevalence of resistance is higher in E. coli than it is in Salmonella spp. with the
exception of Italy and the Netherlands isolates for broilers where clonal spread of the servars Infantis
(Italy) and Heidelberg (the Netherlands) is suspected. Table 51: summarises the data and illustrates
some interesting observations relating to the occurrence of cefotaxime and ceftazidime resistance in
Salmonella spp. and E. coli in MSs.
Where resistance is detected in Salmonella spp. in an MS, it is also invariably present in E. coli in that
reporting MS and usually occurs at a higher level (with only two exceptions). Some MSs do not report
cefotaxime and ceftazidime resistance in Salmonella spp. or in E. coli for some food-producing
animals. The degree of resistance observed in Salmonella spp. and E. coli may be correlated in those
MSs which have a high level of resistance in Salmonella spp. and have a high level of resistance in
E. coli. However, the correlation does not always hold true and would not be expected to hold where
clonal dissemination of particular strains of Salmonella were responsible for the observed prevalence
of resistance in Salmonella spp or for the other reasons stated above. It appears that, in most MSs,
commensal E. coli is the primary reservoir of beta-lactamase resistance, which is less frequently
observed in Salmonella spp. a bacterial species in which clonal spread is of major importance.
Ten out of the twenty-two MSs (45.5%) reporting data on Salmonella spp. detected resistance to
cefotaxime and ceftazidime in broilers, and the occurrence ranged from 0.4% to 27.3%. In E. coli, 22
out of the 27 reporting MSs (81.5%) detected resistance to the same substances and the occurrence
ranged from 0.6% to 32.2%. For these isolates, the total prevalence of ESBLs vs AmpCs (considering
isolates both classified as ESBL/ESBL+AmpC vs. or AmpC/ESBL+AmpC) for Salmonella (2.49 vs 1.6%;
65.3% vs 43.6% for the cephalosporin resistant isolates) was slightly lower than the one detected for
indicator E. coli (4.1% vs 2.2%; 64.3% vs 34.7% for the cephalosporin resistant isolates).

Table 51: Resistance (%) to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella spp. and indicator E. coli isolates in MSs in 2014 testing both bacterial species in
broilers or fattening turkeys
Country Broilers Fattening turkeys

Salmonella spp. E. coli Salmonella spp. E. coli
Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Cefotaxime Ceftazidime Cefotaxime Ceftazidime
N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res N % Res
Austria 113 0 113 0 176 1.1 176 1.1 14 0 14 0 125 1.6 125 0.8
Belgium 167 4.2 167 3 158 8.2 158 7.0
Bulgaria 17 0 17 0 85 0 85 0
Croatia 126 0 126 0 170 0.6 170 0.6
Cyprus 45 8.9 45 8.9 87 32.2 87 29.9
Czech Republic 212 0.5 212 0.5 196 1.0 196 1.0 19 0 19 0
Denmark 26 0 26 0 191 0 191 0
Estonia 71 4.2 71 2.8
Finland 175 0 175 0
France 36 0 36 0 226 4.0 226 4 58 0 58 0 238 0.4 238 0.4
Germany 28 0 28 0 227 1.3 227 1.3 13 0 13 0 170 2.4 170 1.8
Greece 20 0 20 0 172 2.9 172 2.9
Hungary 169 0 169 0 170 2.9 170 2.9 170 0 170 0 170 1.8 170 1.8
Ireland 17 0 16 6.3 167 4.2 167 3.6
Italy 66 27.3 66 25.8 170 6.5 170 5.9 35 0 35 0 170 1.2 170 1.2
Latvia 147 30.6 147 29.9
Lithuania 85 31.8 85 36.5
Malta 60 3.3 60 16.7 60 15.0 60 20.0
Netherlands 88 17.0 88 17.0 377 2.9 377 3.2
Poland 85 0 85 0 179 2.2 179 2.2 29 0 29 0 170 2.4 170 1.8
Portugal 51 2.0 51 2.0 201 5.5 201 5.5 185 2.7 185 2.7
Romania 554 0.4 554 0.4 859 1.7 859 1.7 38 0 38 0
Slovakia 19 0 19 0 86 12.8 86 11.6
Slovenia 85 0 85 0 85 9.4 85 9.4
Spain 135 2.2 135 2.2 170 14.7 170 14.7 226 0 226 0 170 10.0 170 10.0
Sweden 197 0 197 0 59 1.7 59 1.7
United Kingdom 168 0 168 0 159 0 159 0 162 0 162 0 168 0 168 0
Total (MSs 27) 2,287 2.3 2,286 2.6 5,046 5.1 5,046 5.0 726 0 726 0 1,663 2.3 1,663 2.2
Iceland 16 0 16 0 205 1.5 205 1.5
MSs: Member states; N: number of the isolates tested; % Res: percentage of resistant isolates;: no information available.

3.5.5. Discussion
Third-generation cephalosporins are antimicrobials of particular importance because they are
frequently used as the first-line treatment in invasive Gram-negative infections, for example infections
caused by E. coli or Salmonella. In 2014, as in the previous years, resistance to third-generation
cephalosporins was generally detected at low levels in Salmonella and indicator E. coli isolates
recovered from broilers, laying hens and fattening turkeys and meat thereof.
In most MSs, the prevalence of resistance to cefotaxime in both Salmonella spp. and E. coli was equal
to that observed for ceftazidime. Although resistance assessed using ECOFFs tends to usually detect
resistance to both compounds, this is not always the case and differences in resistance to each
compound may be observed, reflecting whether the ESBL enzyme conferring resistance is primarily a
cefotaximase or a ceftazidimase. ESBLs belonging to the CTX-M family (primarily, although not
entirely, cefotaximases) are currently the most important types of ESBL in both animals and humans
in the majority of MSs. EFSA recommended that both cefotaxime and ceftazidime should be included
in the harmonised mandatory monitoring to ensure optimal detection of all ESBLs (including also
SHV-, TEM- and OXA-variants) (EFSA, 2012a), and this was implemented in 2014, as surveillance
procedures should anticipate possible changes in the status of different ESBL enzymes. The value of
this approach is evident in the cephalosporin resistance figures presented for broilers, where some
isolates were detected which showed synergy with either cefotaxime or ceftazidime alone.
The results have been presented by animal production type. Differences in the occurrence of
resistance may be related to husbandry methods, age or stage of production, the degree of
antimicrobial usage or the influence the structure of the particular livestock industry may have on
clonal spread of resistant organisms. Occurrence of resistance to cefotaxime or/and ceftazidime in
Salmonella spp. was higher in broilers than in laying hens (whenever resistance was detected) for all
MSs (9/22 vs. 3/15 reporting MSs). Laying hens tend to be infrequently treated with antimicrobials,
especially once in lay. The three MSs reporting cefotaxime or ceftazidime resistance in Salmonella spp.
from laying hens, each reported only single isolates of serovars Enteritidis, Paratyphi and Cerro. The
situation differed in relation to Salmonella spp. resistant to third-generation cephalosporins in broilers,
where, of the nine MSs reporting resistant isolates, only two reported single isolates the remainder
detected more than one isolate and Italy ( S. Infantis) and the Netherlands (S. Heidelberg) in
particular reported multiple isolates of the same serovar, indicating likely clonal dissemination of these
serovars in broilers in those MSs. S. Enteritidis from broilers and layers were mostly susceptible to
cefotaxime and ceftazidime from most MSs, with the exception of single S. Enteritidis isolates from
broilers from Portugal and from layers from Poland. Malta reported isolates resistant to ceftazidime,
but susceptible to cefotaxime, in broilers, suggesting that a ceftazidimase enzyme may have been
present. Salmonella spp. resistant to cefotaxime was most frequently observed in broilers and the
proportion of MSs observing any degree of resistance was higher than that for fattening turkeys
where no resistance to third-generation cephalosporins was detected. Although resistance to third-
generation cephalsporins was not detected in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkeys, only nine MSs
reported results for turkeys, whereas 22 MSs reported results for Salmonella spp. from broilers. Some
Salmonella serovars have particular public health significance because they either are common causes
of human salmonellosis or have acquired resistance to a large number of different antimicrobial
compounds (or even exhibit both of these traits). Resistance to third-generation cephalosporins was
detected in a number of serovars of particular public health importance, including S. Typhimurium,
S. Enteritidis and S. Infantis.
Although thorough cooking and appropriate food hygiene procedures kill any bacteria present on food
and prevents cross-contamination of foods with resistant or susceptible bacteria, it is highly desirable
that the level of resistance in zoonotic organisms is very low or zero, especially in relation to important
antimicrobials for human treatment. Among the strains of E. coli occurring in animals, some may be
able to cause infections in humans (many will be largely harmless animal commensals) and some,
although they are primarily commensals of animals, may be able to transiently or permanently
colonise the human intestine. During transient colonisation or passage through the human intestine,
E. coli may be able to exchange their resistance plasmids with the commensal E. coli flora of humans.
Therefore, it is also desirable that resistance to important antimicrobials for human treatment is also
very low or zero in animal strains of E. coli, which might otherwise form a reservoir of resistance
genes.

Considering the 4,179 E. coli isolates reported from broilers, 5% showed co-resistance to cefotaxime
and ciprofloxacin using ECOFFs and 2.3% using clinical breakpoints. Figures for the 2,293 Salmonella
spp. isolates from broiler flocks were rather similar, with 2.3% co-resistance to cefotaxime and
ciprofloxacin detected using ECOFFs and 2.0% co-resistance detected using clinical breakpoints. In
laying hen flocks, where E. coli data were not available, co-resistance in Salmonella occurred at the
much lower level of 0.3%. Differences in the pattern of usage of antimicrobials in broiler and laying
hen flocks may account for the lower level of co-resistance observed in Salmonella isolates from laying
hens. Similarly, of 1,398 E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys, the figures were 2.3% and 1% for co-
resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin using ECOFFs and clinical breakpoints, respectively,
whereas co-resistance was not detected in Salmonella spp. from turkeys. These differences between
E. coli and Salmonella spp. in relation to the observed levels of resistance to cephalosporins and of co-
resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin may relate to a number of factors. Clonal expansion of
Salmonella spp. is suspected in isolates from broilers from Italy and the Netherlands, where one
Salmonella serovar is dominant among those showing resistance. Clonal expansion will be more
readily detected in Salmonella than in E. coli because of the primary culture methods which are used,
in which E. coli are selected at random from the total E. coli population which is present.
The emerging serovar S. Kentucky was the only serovar to show high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin,
and resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime, with a single isolate from broilers in Spain detected with
such resistance. Resistance to both first-line compounds used for treatment of invasive salmonellosis
is undesirable because both first-line treatments are likely to be ineffective.
Third-generation cephalosporin resistance in Salmonella was very low or absent for most of the MSs,
but when present, there were some differences on the resistance mechanisms found depending on
the animal species. In Salmonella from laying hen flocks, AmpC enzyme producers were detected at a
very low level, whereas in Salmonella from broiler flocks, ESBL enzyme producers predominate in
most MSs, although AmpC enzyme producers were majority in the Netherlands, but also occurred in
some other MSs. The occurrence of only a few serovars having acquired these types of resistance
(S. Infantis, S. Heidelberg and S. Java) may be related to the prevalence of these serovars in those
MSs, where resistance was detected or may be related to particular features which have allowed them
to develop resistance or enabled them to spread. In E. coli from both broilers and fattening turkeys,
isolates with a presumptive ESBL phenotype were more common than isolates with a presumptive
AmpC phenotype. Ertapenem resistance was observed in some isolates with an ESBL or AmpC
phenotype and this is presumed to be related to ESBL or AmpC enzyme production in conjunction with
loss of porins.
Temocillin (6--methoxy-ticarcillin) was included in the supplementary panel of antimicrobials for any
isolates showing resistance to cefotaxime, ceftazidime or meropenem in 2014. Temocillin can allow
further phenotypic characterisation of carbapenemase-producing isolates26. Temocillin is unaffected by
most ESBL and AmpC enzymes and may be particularly useful in human medicine to treat urinary tract
infections caused by ESBL-producing Gram-negative organisms (Livermore and Tulkens, 2009).
Resistance to temocillin in ESBL- and AmpC-producing E. coli detected in poultry was rare and was not
observed in E. coli from fattening turkeys in any MS. In E. coli from broilers, it was only detected in
one MS in two isolates, which were both phenotypically ESBL-producers. The significance of E. coli in
poultry and other food-producing animals as a direct cause of extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli
infections in humansis the subject of debate (Blanger et al., 2011). Irrespective of any possible direct
significance of these organisms for humans, resistance in commensal E. coli in animals constitutes a
reservoir of resistance genes and a low prevalence of cephalosporin resistance is therefore desirable.
For the routine AMR monitoring in commensal indicator E. coli, the examination of a single randomly-
selected E. coli isolate from non-selective culture plates was performed. This approach enables the
assessment of the proportion of randomly selected E. coli that is resistant to cephalosporins, as
categorized as presumptive ESBL/ampC/carbapenemase producers. It provides a lower degree of
sensitivity, particularly where ESBL-producing E. coli constitutes a small proportion of the total E. coli
flora, than that obtained using specific monitoring based on selective media. The approach is useful
for consumers risk assessment, as it is consider that E. coli will be transferred along the food chain in
a random fashion (EFSA, 2012a).
26
For example, those isolates producing the enzyme OXA-48 in which high-level resistance to temocillin can be observed
(Woodford et al., 2013).

Conversely, for the specific ESBL/AmpC/carbapenemase monitoring, culture methods using a non-
selective enrichment and a selective medium for the detection of producer E. coli (protocol
recommended by the EURL-AR) shall be used. The method would allow the detection of ESBL/AmpC
within samples (determination of the proportion of samples contaminated with ESBL-/AmpC-
/carbapenemases-producing E. coli). The sensitivity to detect the producer E. coli by this approach is
higher than that obtained when performing the (random) routine monitoring, especially when
investigating populations with a low prevalence of ESBL-producing E. coli. If large numbers of AmpC-
producing E. coli are present in samples, they may obscure the concomitant presence of ESBL-
producing E. coli in the same samples. It should be taken into account that for MDR data analyses,
only a subpopulation of E. coli would be represented (EFSA, 2012a).
Because this report covers only phenotypic monitoring, it is not possible to determine the class or
exact type of beta-lactamase enzyme which is responsible for conferring the resistance detected to
third-generation cephalosporins. Categorising isolates which are resistant to third-generation
cephalosporins and/or carbapenems according to their presumptive ESBL, AmpC and or
carbapenemase phenotype provides useful epidemiological information on the reservoirs of the
different types of resistance present in E. coli in different food-producing animal populations and
categories of foodstuffs. For those countries providing molecular data on the occurrence of selected
acquired genes (i.e. blaCTX-M, blaSHV ESBLs, blaCMY-2), the classification of the isolates according to their
presumptive phenotypes based on the EUCAST criteria (EUCAST, 2013) was supported in most of the
cases (6/151 isolates) by the genotypic findings reported by these MS, underlining the
appropriateness of the criteria applied. The main differences were found for the isolates classified as
presumptive ESBL + AmpC-producers for which the reported MIC values for cefoxitin (low resistance,
values close to the ECOFF) could be related, at least in E. coli, with the putative expression of intrinsic
AmpC genes (Table 40, Table 42, Table 44 and Table 49).
Regarding carbapenem non-susceptibility and detection of putative carbapenemase-producers within
indicator E. coli and/or Salmonella, after validation of data (retesting of antimicrobial susceptibility and
species identification by several MSs), none of the data reported for the isolates collected within the
routine monitoring suggested the presence of these isolates. Only a few countries reported, on
voluntary basis, data on specific monitoring on ESBL-/AmpC-/carbapenemases-producing E. coli
and/or on the specific monitoring on carbapenemase-producing microorganisms in 2014, and
according to these data no putative carbapenemase-producer indicator E. coli isolates were identified.
Whereas this initial data is reassuring, carefulness is advisable until a general overview is performed
through specific monitoring in all MSs in 2015 onwards, as required by the legislation. It shall be also
taken into account that the isolation methods applied for the mandatory ESBL-/AmpC-
/carbapenemases-producing E. coli specific monitoring (selective media containing cefotaxime 1 mg/L,
protocol of EURL-AR) would provide a better sensitivity for the selection of ESBL-/AmpC-producers.

References
Arcilla M, van Hattem J, Matamoros S, Melles D, Penders J, de Jong M, Schultsz C, 2015.
Dissemination of the mcr-1 colistin resistance gene, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Available
online 18 December 2015, ISSN 1473-3099, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00541-1.
Agers Y, Torpdahl M, Zachariasen C, Seyfarth A, Hammerum AM and Mller Nielsen EM, 2012.
Tentative colistin epidemiological cut-off value for Salmonella spp. Foodborne Pathog Dis, 2012
Apr;9(4):367-9. doi:10.1089/fpd.2011.1015
Battisti A, Franco A, Merialdi G, Hasman H, Iurescia M, Lorenzetti R, Feltrin F, Zini M and Aarestrup F
M, 2010. Heterogeneity among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Italian pig
finishing holdings. Vet. Microbiol. 142, 361366, doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.10.008
Blanger L, Garenaux A, Harel J, Boulianne M, Nadeau E and Dozois CM, 2011. Escherichia coli from
animal reservoirs as a potential source of human extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli. FEMS Immunol
Med Microbiol 62, 110.
Berning C, Lanckohr C, Baumgartner H, Drescher M, Becker C, Peters G, Kck R and Kahl B, 2015.
Fatal infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus of clonal complex 398: case
presentations and molecular epidemiology. Journal of Medical Microbiology Case Reports 2, 1-4
doi:10.1099/jmmcr.0.000024
Boumghar-Bourtchai L, Mariani-Kurkdjian P, Bingen E et al., 2008. Macrolide-resistant Shigella sonnei.
Emerging and Infectious Disease 14, 129799.
Cavaco LM, Hasman H, Xia S and Aarestrup FM, 2009. qnrD, a novel gene conferring transferable
quinolone resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Kentucky and Bovismorbificans strains of
human origin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 53, 603608.
Chapman JS, 2003. Disinfectant resistance mechanisms, cross-resistance, and co-resistance.
International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 51, 271276.
Chen HM, Wang Y, Su LH and Chiu CH, 2013. Nontyphoid Salmonella infection: microbiology, clinical
features, and antimicrobial therapy. Pediatrics and Neonatology, 54, 147152.
Chroboczek T, Boisset S, Rasigade J-P, Tristan A, Bes M, et al., 2013. Clonal Complex 398 Methicillin
Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: A Frequent Unspecialized Human Pathogen with Specific
Phenotypic and Genotypic Characteristics. PLoS ONE 8(11):e68462. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0068462
Collignon P, Powers JH, Chiller TM, Aidara-Kane A and Aarestrup FM, 2009. World Health Organization
ranking of antimicrobials according to their importance in human medicine: A critical step for
developing risk management strategies for the use of antimicrobials in food production animals.
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 49, 132141.
Connell SR, Trieber CA, Dinos GP, Einfeldt E, Taylor DE and Nierhaus KH. 2003. Mechanism of Tet(O)-
mediated tetracycline resistance. EMBO Journal, 22, 945953.
Cromb F, Argudn MA, Vanderhaeghen W, Hermans K, Haesebrouck F and Butaye P, 2013.
Transmission dynamics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pigs. Frontiers in
Microbiology, 4, 57. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2013.00057
Cuny C, Layer F, Kck R, Werner G and Witte W, 2013. Methicillin Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus
(MSSA) of Clonal Complex CC398, t571 from Infections in Humans Are Still Rare in Germany. PLoS
ONE 8(12): e83165. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083165
ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2013. Carbapenemase-producing
bacteria in Europe: interim results from the European Survey on carbapenemase-producing
Enterobacteriaceae (EuSCAPE) project. Stockholm: ECDC. Available at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/
en/publications/_layouts/forms/Publication_DispForm.aspx?List=4f55ad51-4aed-4d32-b960-
af70113dbb90&ID=962
ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2014. EU protocol for harmonised
monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in human Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates.

Stockholm: ECDC; 2014. Available at: http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/

harmonised-monitoring-antimicrobial-resistance-human-salmonella-campylobacter-isolates-EU-
protocol.pdf
ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2015. Antimicrobial resistance
surveillance in Europe 2014. Annual Report of the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance
Network (EARS-Net). Stockholm: ECDC; 2015. Available at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/
publications/Publications/antimicrobial-resistance-europe-2014.pdf
ECDC, EFSA, EMEA and SCENIHR (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, European
Food Safety Authority, European Medicines Agency and European Commissions Scientific
Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), 2009. Joint Opinion on antimicrobial
resistance (AMR) focused on zoonotic infections. EFSA Journal 2009;7(11):1372, 78 pp.,
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1372
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and
Control), 2014a. The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses,
Zoonotic agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2012. EFSA Journal 2014;12(2):3590, 312 pp.,
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3547
Control), 2014b. The European Union Summary Report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and
indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2012. EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3590, 336
pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3590
Control), 2015. The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses,
Zoonotic agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2014. EFSA Journal 2015;13(12):4329, 191 pp.,
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4329
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007. Report of the Task Force of Zoonoses Data Collection
including a proposal for harmonized monitoring scheme of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella in
fowl (Gallus gallus), turkeys, and pigs and Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli in broilers. The EFSA
Journal 2007, 96r, 146.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2008. Report from the Task Force on Zoonoses Data
Collection including guidance for harmonized monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance
in commensal Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. from food animals. The EFSA Journal 2008,
141r, 144.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009a. Joint scientific report of ECDC, EFSA and EMEA on
meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in livestock, companion animals and foods.
EFSA-Q-2009-00612 (EFSA Scientific Report (2009) 301, 110) and
EMEA/CVMP/SAGAM/62464/2009. The EFSA Journal 2009, 301r, 110.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009b. Analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in holdings with breeding pigs, in the EU, 2008,
Part A: MRSA prevalence estimates; on request from the European Commission. EFSA Journal
2009;7(11):1376, 82 pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1376
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009c. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Biological Hazards
on a request from the European Commission on Assessment of the public health significance of
meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in animals and foods. The EFSA Journal 2009,
993, 173.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2012a. Technical specifications for the analysis and reporting
of data on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the European Union Summary Report. EFSA Journal
2012;10(2):2587, 53 pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2587
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2012b. Technical specifications for the harmonised
monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in methicillin-resistent Staphylococcus aureus
in food-producing animals and foods. EFSA Journal 2012;10(10):2897, 56 pp.,
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2897

EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2010a. Scientific Opinion on Quantification of
the risk posed by broiler meat to human campylobacteriosis in the EU. EFSA Journal
2010;8(1):1437, 89 pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1437
EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2010b. Scientific Opinion on monitoring and
assessment of the public health risk of Salmonella Typhimurium-like strains. EFSA Journal
2010;8(10):1826, 48 pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1826
European Medicines Agency, European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption, 2013.
'Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 25 EU/EEA countries in 2011' (EMA/236501/2013)
EUCAST (European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing), 2013. EUCAST guidelines for
detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical and/or epidemiological
importance (Version 1.0 December 2013. Available on line at http://www.eucast.org/
fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Resistance_mechanisms/EUCAST_detection_of_resistance
_mechanisms_v1.0_20131211.pdf
EUCAST (European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing), 2014. Screening for
fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella spp. with pefloxacin 5 g. Tentative quality control criteria
for users and disk manufacturers. Available at: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/
PDFs/EUCAST_files/QC/Tentative_QC_criteria_for_pefloxacin_5__g.pdf
Falgenhauer L, Waezsada S-E, Yao Y, Imirzalioglu C, Ksbohrer A, Roesler U, Brenner Michael G,
Schwarz S, Werner G, Kreienbrock L, Chakraborty T, 2016. Colistin resistance gene mcr-1 in
extended-spectrum -lactamase-producing and carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria
in Germany, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Available online 8 January 2016, ISSN 1473-3099,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00009-8
Food and Drug Administration. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System Retail Meat
Annual Report, 2011. http://www.fda. gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/
NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/ucm334828.pdf
Frost J, 1994. Testing for resistance to antibacterial drugs. In: Methods in practical laboratory
bacteriology. Ed Chart H. CRC Press, New York, USA, 7382.
Ge B, McDermott P, White D and Meng J , 2005. Role of efflux pumps and topoisomerase mutations in
fluoroquinolone resistance inCampylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 49: 33473354.
Gibreel A and Taylor DE, 2006. Macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 58, 243255. http://dx .doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkl210
Graveland H, Wagenaar JA, Heesterbeek H, Mevius D, van Duijkeren E and Heederik D, 2010.
Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in veal calf farming: human MRSA carriage
related with animal antimicrobial usage and farm hygiene. PLoS ONE, 5, e10990.
Grimont PAD, Weill F-X, 2013. Antigenic formulae of the Salmonella serovars 2007 9th edition. WHO
Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Salmonella.
Guardabassi L, ODonoghue M, Moodley A, Ho J and Boost M, 2009. Novel lineage of methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Hong Kong. Emerging and Infectious Diseases, 15, 19982000.
Haenni M, Poirel L, Kieffer N, Chtre P, Saras E, Mtayer V, Dumoulin R, Nordmann P, Madec J-Y,
2016. Co-occurrence of extended spectrum lactamase and MCR-1 encoding genes on plasmids,
The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Available online 8 January 2016, ISSN 1473-3099,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00007-4
Hasman H. et al, 'Detection of mcr-1 encoding plasmid-mediated colistin-resistant Escherichia coli
isolates from human bloodstream infection and imported chicken meat, Denmark 2015 '
Eurosurveillance, Vol. 20 (49), 10 December 2015 .
Kahlmeter G, Brown DF, Goldstein FW, MacGowan AP, Mouton JW, Osterlund A, Rodloff A, Steinbakk
M, Urbaskova P and Vatopoulos A, 2003. European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for
antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 52, 145
148.

Kck R, Schaumburg F, Mellmann A, Kksal M, Jurke A, Becker K and Friedrich AW, 2013. Livestock-
Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as Causes of Human Infection and
Colonization in Germany. PLoS ONE 8(2): e55040. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055040
Le Hello S, Bekhit A, Granier SA, Barua H, Beutlich J, Zajc M, Mnch S, Sintchenko V, Bouchrif B,
Fashae K, Pinsard JL, Sontag L, Fabre L, Garnier M, Guibert V, Howard P, Hendriksen RS,
Christensen JP, Biswas PK, Cloeckaert A, Rabsch W, Wasyl D, Doublet B and Weill FX, 2013a. The
global establishment of a highly-fluoroquinolone resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Kentucky
ST198 strain. Frontiers in Microbiology, 18, 395. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00395
Le Hello S, Harrois D, Bouchrif B, Sontag L, Elhani D, Guibert V, Zerouali K and Weill FX, 2013b. Highly
drug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Kentucky ST198-X1: a microbiological study. Lancet
Infectious Diseases, 13, 672679.
Le Hello S, Hendriksen RS, Doublet B, Fisher I, Nielsen EM, Whichard JM, Bouchrif B, Fashae K,
Granier SA, Jourdan-Da Silva N, Cloeckaert A, Threlfall EJ, Angulo FJ, Aarestrup FM, Wain J and
Weill FX, 2011. International spread of an epidemic population of Salmonella enterica serotype
Kentucky ST198 resistant to ciprofloxacin. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 204, 675684.
Lekkerkerk WSN, van Wamel WJB, Snijders SV, Willems RJ, van Duijkeren E, Broens EM, Wagenaar
JA, Lindsay J, and Vos MC, 2015. What is the origin of Livestock-associated MRSA CC398 isolates
from humans without livestock contact: an epidemiological and genetic analysis. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology. In press. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02702-14
Liu J, Keelan P, Bennett PM and Enne VI, 2009. Characterization of a novel macrolide efflux gene,
mef(B), found linked to sul3 in porcine Escherichia coli Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 63,
423426.
Liu Y-Y, Wang T, Walsh TR, Yi L-X, Zhang R, Spencer J, Doi Y, Tian G, Dong B, Huang X, Yu L-F, Gu
D, Ren H, Chen X, Lv L, He D, Zhou H, Liang Z, Liu J-H and Shen J, 2015. Emergence of plasmid-
mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: a
microbiological and molecular biological study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases; published online
Nov 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00424-7
Livermore DM and Tulkens PM, 2009. Temocillin revived. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 63,
243245.
Luangtongkum T, Jeon B, Han J, Plummer P, Logue CM and Zhang Q, 2009. Antibiotic resistance in
Campylobacter: emergence, transmission, and persistence. Future Microbiology, 4, 189200.
Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, Harbarth S, Hindler JF,
Kahlmeter G, Olsson-Liljequist B, Paterson DL, Rice LB, Stelling J, Struelens MJ, Vatopoulos A,
Weber JT and Monnet DL, 2012. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-
resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired
resistance. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 18, 268281.
Malhotra-Kumar S, Britto Xavier B, Anupam J Das, Christine Lammens, Patrick Butaye, Herman
Goossens, 2016. Colistin resistance gene mcr-1 harboured on a multidrug resistant plasmid, The
Lancet Infectious Diseases, Available online 8 January 2016, ISSN 1473-3099,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00012-8
Martinez Rodriguez NR, Eloi MD, Huynh A, Dominguez T, Lam AH, CarcamoMolina D,
2012. Expansion of Paneth cell population in response to enteric Salmonella enterica serovar
Typhimurium infection. Infect. Immun.;80:266275.
Matuschek E, Westrell T and Kahlmether G, 2015. Establishment of zone diameter ECOFFs for
Salmonella spp. a joint EUCAST and ECDC project. Poster session presented at: 25th European
Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 25-28 April 2015, Copenhagen,
Denmark. Available at: http://eccmid.meetingexpert.net/eccmid_546/poster_123911/program.aspx
Nguyen MCP, Woerther P-L, Bouvet M, Andremont A, Leclercq R and Canu A, 2009. Escherichia coli as
Reservoir for Macrolide Resistance Genes. Emerging and Infectious Diseases, 15, 16481650.

Normanno G, Dambrosio A, Lorusso V, Samoilis G, Di Taranto P and Parisi A, 2015. Methicillin-

resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in slaughtered pigs and abattoir workers in Italy. Food
Microbiology, 51, 5156.
Olaitan AO, Morand S, Rolain JM, 2014. Mechanisms of polymyxin resistance: acquired and intrinsic
resistance in bacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology, Nov 26, 5, article 643.
Overesch G, Bttner S, Rossano A and Perreten V, 2011. The increase of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the presence of an unusual sequence type ST49 in slaughter
pigs in Switzerland. BMC Veterinary Research, 7, 3039.
Piddock LJ, Griggs D, Johnson MM, Ricci V, Elviss NC, Williams LK, Jrgensen F, Chisholm SA, Lawson
AJ, Swift C, Humphrey TJ and Owen RJ, 2008. Persistence of Campylobacter species, strain types,
antibiotic resistance and mechanisms of tetracycline resistance in poultry flocks treated with
chlortetracycline. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 62, 303315.
Piddock LJ, Ricci V, Pumbwe L, Everett MJ and Griggs DJ, 2003. Fluoroquinolone resistance in
Campylobacter species from man and animals: detection of mutations in topoisomerase genes.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 5, 1926.
Poirel L, Kieffer N, Liassine N, Thanh D, Nordmann P, 2016. Plasmid-mediated carbapenem and
colistin resistance in a clinical isolate of Escherichia coli, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Available
online 8 January 2016, ISSN 1473-3099, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00006-2
Qin S, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Chen X, Shen Z, Deng F, Wu C and Shen J, 2012. Identification of a novel
genomic island conferring resistance to multiple aminoglycoside antibiotics in Campylobacter coli.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 5, 53325339.
Qin S, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Deng F, Shen Z, Wu C, Wang S, Zhang J and Shen J, 2014. Report of
ribosomal RNA methylase gene erm(B) in multidrug resistant Campylobacter coli. Journal of
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 69, 964968. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkt492
Schmidt JW, Agga GE, Bosilevac JM, Brichta-Harhay DM, Shackelford SD, Wang R, Wheeler TL, Arthur
TM, 2015. Occurrence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica in the beef
cattle production and processing continuum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 81, 713
725. doi:10.1128/AEM.03079-14.
Seidman JC, Coles CL, Silbergeld EK, Levens J, Mkocha H, Johnson LB, Muoz B, West SK, 2014.
Increased carriage of macrolide-resistant fecal E. coli following mass distribution of azithromycin
for trachoma control. Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;43(4):110513.
Skov R, Matuschek E, Sjlund-Karlsson M, hman J, Petersen A, Stegger M, Torpdahl M, Kahlmeter G.
2015. Development of a pefloxacin disk diffusion method for detection of fluoroquinolone-resistant
Salmonella enterica. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 53, 34113417. doi:10.1128/JCM.01287-15
Smith TC and Wardyn SE, 2015. Human Infections with Staphylococcus aureus CC398. Current
Environmental Health Reports, 2, 4151.
Wageningen, 2015. New type of colistin resistance also found in the Netherlands, Wageningen UR, 17
December, 2015.
Wang Y, Zhang M, Deng F, Shen Z, Wu C, Zhang J, Zhang Q and Shena J, 2015. Emergence of
Multidrug-Resistant Campylobacter Species Isolates with a Horizontally Acquired rRNA Methylase.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 58, 54055412.
Webb HE, Granier SA, Marault M, Millemann Y, den Bakker HC, Nightingale KK, Bugarel M, Ison SA,
Scott HM, Loneragan GH, 2015. Dissemination of the mcr-1 colistin resistance gene. The Lancet.
Infectious Diseases, 16, 144145.
Westrell T, Monnet DL, Gossner C, Heuer O and Takkinen J, 2014. Drug-resistant Salmonella enterica
serotype Kentucky in Europe. The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 14, 270271.
Wieczorek K and Osek J, 2013. Antimicrobial Resistance Mechanisms among Campylobacter. BioMed
Research International. Volume 2013, Article ID 340605, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/340605

Woodford N, Wareham DW, Guerra B and Teale C, 2013. Carbapenemase-producing

Enterobacteriaceae and non-Enterobacteriaceae from animals and the environment: an emerging
public health risk of our own making? Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 69, 287291.
Woodmansey D, 2015. Scientists find mcr-1 gene in food and human isolates (England and Wales),
vet times, 11 December 2015.
Zhao S, Mukherjee S, Chen Y, Li C, Young S, Warren M, Abbott J, Friedman S, Kabera C, Karlsson M
and McDermott PF, 2015. Novel gentamicin resistance genes in Campylobacter isolated from
humans and retail meats in the USA. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 70, 13141321.

List of abbreviations
% percentage of resistant isolates per category of susceptibility or multiple resistance
%f percentage frequency of isolates tested
% Res percentage of resistant isolates
no data reported
APHA Animal and Plant Health Agency
AMR antimicrobial resistance
AST antimicrobial susceptibility testing
BIOHAZ EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards
CA-SFM French Society for Microbiology
CC clonal complex
CLSI Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute
CBP clinical breakpoints
CP carbapenemase producer
CTX-M cefotaximase
DD disk diffusion method
DL dilution method
DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung
EARS-Net European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network
EC European Commission
ECDC European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
ECOFF epidemiological cut-off value
EEA European Economic Area
ESBL extended spectrum beta-lactamase
ETEC enterotoxigenic E. coli
EUCAST European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
EURL-AR EU Reference Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance (www.crl-ar.eu)
FWD food- and waterborne diseases and zoonoses
HACCP hazard analysis and critical control point
HPA Health Protection Agency (UK)
I intermediate
IZD inhibition zone diameter
MDR multiple drug resistance
MIC minimum inhibitory concentration
MRSA meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
MSSA meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus
MS Member State
NA not applicable
NCP National Control Programme
NRL National Reference Laboratory
Q quantitative
R resistant
res1res9 resistance to one antimicrobial substance/resistance to nine antimicrobial substances
of the common set for Salmonella
S susceptible
SIR susceptible, intermediate, resistant

ST sequence type
TESSy The European Surveillance System
VTEC vero(cyto)toxigenic E. coli
WHO World Health Organization
Antimicrobial substances
AMC amoxicillin/clavulanate
AMP ampicillin
AZM azithromycin
CAZ ceftazidime
CHL chloramphenicol
CIP ciprofloxacin
CLI clindamycin
CST colistin
CTX cefotaxime
ERY erythromycin
FUS fusidic acid
GEN gentamicin
KAN kanamycin
LZD linezolid
MER meropenem
MUP mupirocin
NAL nalidixic acid
QD quinupristin/dalfopristin
RIF rifampicin
SUL sulfonamides
STR streptomycin
SXT sulfamethoxazole
TGC tigecycline
TIA tiamulin
TET tetracycline
TMP trimethoprim
MSs of the EU and other reporting countries in 2014

Austria AT
Belgium BE
Bulgaria BG
Croatia HR
Cyprus CY
Czech Republic CZ
Denmark DK
Estonia EE

Finland FI
France FR
Germany DE
Greece GR
Hungary HU
Ireland IE
Italy IT
Latvia LV
Lithuania LT
Luxembourg LU
Malta MT
Netherlands NL
Poland PL
Portugal PT
Romania RO
Slovakia SK
Slovenia SI
Spain ES
Sweden SE
United Kingdom UK
Non-MSs reporting, 2014

Iceland IS
Norway NO
Switzerland CH
Definitions
Antimicrobial-resistant In the case of quantitative data, an isolate was defined as resistant to a
isolate selected antimicrobial when its minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value
(in mg/L) was above the cut-off value or the disc diffusion diameter (in mm)
was below the cut-off value. The cut-off values, used to interpret MIC
distributions (mg/L) for bacteria from animals and food, are shown in
Material and methods, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
In the case of qualitative data, an isolate was regarded as resistant when the
country reported it as resistant using its own cut-off value or break point
Level of antimicrobial The percentage of resistant isolates among the tested isolates
resistance
Reporting MS group MSs (MSs) that provided data and were included in the relevant table for
antimicrobial resistance data for the bacteriafood/animal category
antimicrobial combination
Terms used to describe the Rare: < 0.1%
antimicrobial resistance levels
Very low: 0.1% to 1.0%
Low: > 1.0% to 10.0%
Moderate: > 10.0% to 20.0%

High: > 20.0% to 50.0%

Very high: > 50.0% to 70.0%
Extremely high: > 70.0%

Appendix: List of usable data
1. Summary
Table abbreviation Table name
SUMTABL1 Summary of phenotypic characterisation of third generation cephalosporin resistance in
Salmonella from poultry in 2014
SUMTABL2 Summary of phenotypic characterisation of third generation cephalosporin resistance in
E. coli from poultry in 2014
Figure abbreviation Figure name

FIG1 Breakdown of serovars in Salmonella isolates from broiler flocks tested for antimicrobial
susceptibility in the EU, 2014
FIG2 Proportions of isolates fully susceptible, resistant to one to two classes of substances
and multiresistant in the most commonly recovered Salmonella serovars in broiler
flocks in the EU, 2014
FIG3 Colistin resistance in Salmonella
FIG4 Colistin resistance in indicator E. coli
FIG5 Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from broilers
FIG6 Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from fattening turkeys
2. Matherial and Methods

MMTABL1 Antimicrobials reported, methods used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria
applied by MSs for human Salmonella AST data in 2014
MMTABL2 Antimicrobials reported, method used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria
applied by MSs for human Campylobacter AST data in 2014
MMTABL3 Panel of antimicrobial substances included in AMR monitoring, EUCAST ECOFFs and
panel)
MMTABL4 Panel of antimicrobial substances included in AMR monitoring, EUCAST ECOFFs and
concentration ranges tested in C. jejuni and C. coli
MMTABL5 Panel of antimicrobial substances, EUCAST ECOFFs and concentration ranges used for
cefotaxime, ceftazidime or meropenem (second panel)
3.1. Salmonella
3.1.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates from humans

BOVISHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Bovismorbificans from humans per country in
2014
BREDENEYHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Bredeney from humans per country in 2014
CHESTERHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Chester from humans per country in 2014
COMDERBYHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Salmonella Derby
from humans in 2014
COMENTERHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Salmonella Enteritidis
from humans in 2014
COMINFANHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Salmonella Infantis
from humans in 2014
COMKENTHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Salmonella Kentucky
from humans in 2014
COMMONTYPHIHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium
from humans in 2014
COMSALMHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Salmonella spp.
from humans in 2014

COMTYPHIHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Salmonella Typhimurium

from humans in 2014
CORVALLISHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Corvallis from humans per country in 2014
DERBYHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Derby from humans per country in 2014
ENTERHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Enteritidis from humans per country in 2014
HADARHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Hadar from humans per country in 2014
INDIANAHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Indiana from humans per country in 2014
INFANHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Infantis from humans per country in 2014
KENTHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Kentucky from humans per country in 2014
MBANDAKAHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Mbandaka from humans per country in 2014
MIKAWAHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Mikawasima from humans per country in 2014
MM1 Antimicrobials reported, methods used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria
applied by MS for human Salmonella AST data in 2014
MONTYPHIHUMD Antimicrobial resistance in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- from
humans per country in 2014
MUENCHENHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Muenchen from humans per country in 2014
NEWPORTHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Newport from humans per country in 2014
PARATYPHIBJAVAHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Paratyphi B var. L+ tartrate+ (Java) from
humans per country in 2014
RISSENHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Rissen from humans per country in 2014
SALMHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. (all non-typhoidal serovars) from humans
per country in 2014
SALMTRAVHUMAN Proportion of tested Salmonella spp. isolates from human cases associated with travel,
domestic cases and cases with unknown travel information by country in 2014
SENFTHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Senftenberg from humans per country in 2014
STANLEYHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Stanley from humans per country in 2014
TYPHIHUMD Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Typhimurium from humans per country in 2014
VIRCHOVHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Virchow from humans per country in 2014

FIG7 Comparison of CBPs for non-susceptibility (intermediate and resistant categories
combined) and ECOFFs used to interpret MIC data reported for Salmonella spp.
from humans, animals or food
FIG8 Frequency distribution of Salmonella spp. isolates from humans completely
susceptible or resistant to one to eight antimicrobial classes in 2014
FIG9 Frequency distribution of Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from humans completely
FIG10 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among S. Enteritidis from human
FIG11 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among S. Enteritidis from human
FIG12 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among S. Enteritidis from human
FIG13 Frequency distribution of Salmonella Infantis isolates from humans completely
FIG14 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among S. Infantis from human
FIG15 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among S. Infantis from human
FIG16 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among S. Infantis from human cases
in reporting countries in 2014

FIG17 Frequency distribution of Salmonella Kentucky isolates from humans completely

FIG18 Frequency distribution of Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from humans
completely susceptible or resistant to one to nine antimicrobial classes in 2014
FIG19 Frequency distribution of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:-
isolates from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to eight
antimicrobial classes in 2014
3.1.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates from animals and food

BREDENEYTURKMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Bredeney from meat from turkeys in 2014, using harmonis
ed epidemiological cut-off values
CEFOCOM Occurrence of resistance to cefotaxime,Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. from broilers,
laying hens, fattening turkeys, fattening pigs and calves (under 1 year) in 2014, u
sing harmonised ECOFFs and EUCAST CBPs
COMDERBYLAY Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Derby from laying hens in 2014
COMDERBYTURKMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Derby from meat from turkeys in 2
014
COMDERBYTURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Derby from fattening turkeys in 20
14
COMENTERBREED Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Enteriditis from breeding hens in 2
014
COMENTERBRMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Enteritidis from meat from broilers
in 2014
COMENTERBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Enteriditis from broilers in 2014
COMENTERLAY Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Enteriditis from laying hens in 201
4
COMINFANBRMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Infantis from meat from broilers in
2014
COMINFANBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Infantis from broilers in 2014
COMINFANITURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Infantis from fattening turkeys in 2
014
COMINFANLAY Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Infantis from laying hens in 2014
COMINFTURKMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Infantis from meat from turkeys i
n 2014
COMKENBRMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Kentucky from meat from broilers i
n 2014
COMKENBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Kentucky from broilers in 2014
COMKENLAY Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Kentucky from laying hens in 201
4
COMKENTUCKYTURKMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Kentucky from meat from turkeys
in 2014
COMKENTURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Kentucky from fattening turkeys in
2014
COMMONTYPHIBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from br
oilers in 2014
COMMONTYPHILAY Complete susceptibility and MDR in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from lay
ing hens in 2014
COMPSALMBRMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella spp. from meat from broilers in 20
14
COMSALMBREED Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella spp. from breeding hens in 2014
COMSALMBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella spp. from broilers in 2014
COMSALMLAY Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella spp. from laying hens in 2014
COMSALMPIGMEAT Complete susceptibility, MDR and index of diversity in Salmonella spp. from pig m
eat in 2014

COMSALMTURKMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella spp. from meat from turkeys in 20
14
COMSALMTURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkeys in 201
4
COMSTANTURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Stanley from fattening turkeys in 2
014
COMTYPHIBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Typhimurium from broilers in 201
4
COMTYPHILAY Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Typhimurium from laying hens in 2
014
COMTYPHIPIGMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Typhimurium from meat from pigs
in 2014
COMTYPHITURKMEAT Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Typhimurium from meat from turk
eys in 2014
COMTYPHITURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in Salmonella Typhimurium from fattening turke
ys in 2014
COSALM Co-
resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin (applying EUCAST clinical breakpoints)
DERBYTURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Derby isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmo
nised epidemiological cut-off values
ENTERBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised
epidemiological cut-off values
ENTERBRD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised
ENTERBRMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Enteritidis from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonis
ENTERBRMEATD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Enteritidis from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonis
ENTERLAYD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmoni
sed epidemiological cut-off values
ENTERLAYD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmoni
ENTEROVERVIEW Overview of countries reporting antimicrobial resistance data using MICs on Salmo
nella Enteritidis from humans and various animal and food categories in 2014
ENTERTURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using ha
rmonised epidemiological cut-off values
FREQINFBR Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
rom one to nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Infantis
from broilers in 2014
FREQKENMBR Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
rom one to nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Kentuky
from broilers in 2014
FREQSALMBR Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
rom one to nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from broilers in 2014
FREQSALMLAY Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
rom one to nine antimicrobials
classes in Salmonella spp. from laying hens in 2014
HADARTURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Hadar isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmo

HFREQENTERBRMEAT Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f

classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) in 2014
HFREQENTERBR Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers in 2014
HFREQINFLAY Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
classes in Salmonella Infantis from laying hens in 2014
HFREQKENTLAY Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
classes in Salmonella Kentuky from laying hens in 2014
HFREQSALMBRMEAT Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
classes in Salmonella spp. from meat from broilers (Gallus gallus) in 2014
HFREQSALMTURKMEAT Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
classes in Salmonella spp. from meat from turkeys in 2014
HFREQSALMTURK Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to f
classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkeys in 2014
HIGHSALMBR Ciprofloxacin resistance assessed at differing thresholds in
Salmonella serovars from broilers in 2014
HIGHSALMBRMEAT Ciprofloxacin resistance assessed at differing thresholds
in Salmonella serovars from broiler meat in 2014
HIGHSALMLAY Ciprofloxacin resistance assessed at differing thresholds in Salmonella serovars fro
m laying hens in 2014
HIGHSALMTURK Ciprofloxacin resistance assessed at differing thresholds in
Salmonella serovars from fattening turkeys in 2014
HIGHSALMTURKMEAT Ciprofloxacin resistance assessed at differing thresholds in Salmonella serovars fro
m turkey meat in 2014
INDIANABRMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Indiana from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonised
INFANBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Infantis isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised ep
idemiological cut-off values
INFANBRD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Infantis isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised ep
idemiological cut-off values
INFANBRMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Infantis from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonised
INFANBRMEATD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Infantis from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonised
INFANLAYD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Infantis isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmonise
d epidemiological cut-off values
INFATURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel1, in Salmonella Infantis isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harm
onised epidemiological cut-off values
INFTURKMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel1, in Salmonella Infantis from meat from turkeys in 2014, using harmonised
KENTBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel1, in Salmonella Kentucky isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised e
pidemiological cut-off values
KENTBRD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel2, in Salmonella Kentucky isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised e

KENTLAYD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,

Panel1, in Salmonella Kentucky isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmonis
KENTTURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel1, in Salmonella Kentucky isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using har
monised epidemiological cut-off values
KENTUBRMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel1, in Salmonella Kentucky from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonise
KENTURKMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Kentucky from meat from turkeys in 2014, using harmonise
MBANBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Mbandaka isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised
MBANBRD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Mbandaka isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised
MONTYPHIBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from broilers in 2014, usi
ng harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
MONTYPHILAYD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from laying hens in 2014
, using harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
MULTIDERBYTURK MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Derby from fattening turkeys in 2014
MULTIENTERBR MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers in 2014
MULTIENTERLAY MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella Enteritidis from laying hens in 2014
MULTIINFANBR MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella Infantis from broilers in 2014
MULTIINFANBRMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Infantis from meat from broilers in 2014
MULTIINFANLAY MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Infantis from laying hens in 2014
MULTIINFANTURK MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Infantis from fattening turkeys in 2014
MULTIINFBR MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella Infantis from broilers in 2014
MULTIINFLAY MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel 1,
in Salmonella Infantis from laying hens in 2014
MULTIINFTURKMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Infantis from meat from turkeys in 2014
MULTIKENBRMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Kentucky from meat from broilers in 2014
MULTIKENTBR MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella Kentucky from broilers in 2014
MULTIKENTLAY MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella Kentucky from laying hens in 2014
MULTIKENTUCKYTURKMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Kentucky from meat from turkeys in 2014
MULTIKENTURK MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Kentucky from fattening turkeys in 2014
MULTIMONTYPHIBR MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from broilers in 2014
MULTIMONTYPHILAY MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from laying hens in 2014
MULTISALMBR MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella spp. from broilers in 2014
MULTISALMBREED MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. from breeding hens in 2014

MULTISALMBRMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,

Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. from meat from broilers in 2014
MULTISALMLAY MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Salmonella spp. from laying hens in 2014
MULTISALMTURKMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. from meat from turkeys in 2014
MULTISALTURK MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkeys in 2014
MULTISTANTURK MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Stanley from fattening turkeys in 2014
MULTISTANTURKMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Stanley from meat from turkeys in 2014
MULTITYPHIBR MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Typhimurium from broilers in 2014
MULTITYPHILAY Multiresistance patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Typhimurium from laying hens in 2014
MULTITYPHITURK MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Typhimurium from fattening turkeys in 2014
MULTITYPHITURKMEAT MDR patterns to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Typhimurium from meat from turkeys in 2014
NEWPTURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Newport isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using har
NEWPTURKD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Newport isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using har
NEWTURKMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Newport from meat from turkeys in 2014, using harmonise
RISSENBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Rissen isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised epi
demiological cut-off values
SALMBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised epi
SALMBRD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella spp. isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonised epi
SALMBRMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonised epi
demiological cut-off value
SALMBRMEATD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella spp. from meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonised epi
SALMFATTURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmoni
SALMFATTURKD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella spp. isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmoni
SALMLAYD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmonised e
SALMLAYD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella spp. isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harmonised e
SALMOVERVIEW Overview of countries reporting antimicrobial resistance data using MICs on Salmo
nella spp all serovars from humans and various animal and food categories in 20
14
SALMTURKMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella spp. from meat from turkeys in 2014, using harmonised epi

SENFBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,

Panel 1, in Salmonella Senftenberg isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonise
SENFBRD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Senftenberg isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonise
SERBOVMEAT Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from meat from bovine
animals tested for anticrobial susceptibility to Panel 1 substances in 2014
SERBR2 Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from broilers tested for
anticrobial susceptibility to Panel 2 substances in 2014
SERBRMEAT2 Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from meat from broilers
tested for anticrobial susceptibility to Panel 2 substances in 2014
SERBRMEAT Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from meat from broilers
SERBR Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from broilers tested for
SERCALVES Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of
isolates from calves (under 1 year) tested for anticrobial susceptibility to Panel 1
substances in 2014
SERCATT Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from cattle tested for
SERFATPIGS Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from fattening pigs
SERGAL Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from Gallus gallus (fowl)
SERLAY2 Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from laying hens tested
for anticrobial susceptibility to Panel 2 substances in 2014
SERLAY Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from laying hens tested
for anticrobial susceptibility to Panel 1 substances in 2014
SEROFATTURK Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from fattening turkeys
tested for anticrobial susceptibility to Panel 1
SEROFATTURK2 Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from fattening turkeys
SEROTURK Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from turkeys tested for
SERPIGMEAT Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from meat from pigs
SERPIGMEAT2 Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from meat from pigs
SERPIGS Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from pigs tested for
SERTURMEAT Frequency distribution of Salmonella serovars of isolates from meat from turkeys
TYPHIBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonis
TYPHIBRD2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, in Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from broilers in 2014, using harmonis
TYPHILAYD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from laying hens in 2014, using harm
onised epidemiological cut-off values
TYPHIOVERVIEW Overview of countries reporting antimicrobial resistance data using MICs on Salmo
nella Typhimurium from humans and various animal and food categories in 2014
TYPHITURKD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 1, in Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using
harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
TYPHITURKMEATD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel1, in Salmonella Typhimurium from meat from turkeys in 2014, using harmo


FIG20 Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to
nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from broiler
nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkey meat in MSs in 2014
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from broilers in MSs in 2014
FIG23 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
FIG24 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
FIG25 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from broilers in
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Infantis from broilers in MSs in 2014
FIG27 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers
FIG28 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers
FIG29 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Infantis from broilers in
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers in MSs in 2014
FIG31 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from
broilers in countries reporting MIC data in 2014
FIG32 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from
broilers in countries reporting MIC data in 2014
FIG33 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from broilers
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Kentuky from broilers in MSs in 2014
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from laying hens in MSs in 2014
FIG36 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens
FIG37 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens
FIG38 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from laying hens in
FIG39 Trends in ampicillin, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance in tested
data
quantitative data
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Enteritidis from laying hens in MSs in 2014
FIG42 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
FIG43 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
FIG44 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella Enteritidis from laying
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Infantis from laying hens in MSs in 2014
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella Kentucky from laying hens in MSs in 2014
Salmonella spp. isolates from turkeys in reporting MSs, 20082014, quantitative data
FIG48 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014

FIG49 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014
FIG50 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening
turkeys in 2014
nine antimicrobials classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening turkeys in 2014
FIG52 Tigecycline resistance in Salmonella spp.
3.2. Campylobacter
3.2.1. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from humans

CAMPCOHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter coli from humans per country in 2014
CAMPJEHUM Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni from humans per country in 2014
CAMPTRAVHUM Proportion of tested Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli isolates from human cases
associated with travel, domestic cases and cases with unknown travel
information by country in 2014
COMCAMPCOHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Campylobacter coli
from humans in 2014
COMCAMPJEHUM Complete susceptibility, MDR and co-resistance in Campylobacter jejuni
from humans in 2014
MM2 Antimicrobials reported, methods used, type of data reported and interpretive criteria
applied by MS for human Campylobacter AST data in 2014
3.2.2. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates from animals and food

CAMPCOBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter coli from broilers
in 2014, using harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
CAMPCOMEAT Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter coli from meat in
2014, using harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
CAMPCOOVERVIEW Overview of countries reporting antimicrobial resistance data using MIC on Campylobac
ter coli from humans and various animal and food categories in 2014
CAMPCOTURD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter coli from fattening
turkeys in 2014, using harmonised epidemiological cutoff values
CAMPJEBRD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter jejuni from broiler
s in 2014, using harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
CAMPJEMEAT Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter jejuni from meat i
n 2014, using harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
CAMPJEOVERVIEW Overview of countries reporting antimicrobial resistance data using MIC on Campylobac
ter jejuni from humans and various animal and food categories in 2014
CAMPJETURD Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Campylobacter jejuni from fatteni
ng turkeys in 2014, using harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
COMCAMPCOBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in Campylobacter coli from broilers in 2014
COMCAMPJEBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in Campylobacter jejuni from broilers in 2014
COMCAMPJETURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in Campylobacter jejuni from fattening turkeys in 201
4
FREQCAMPCOBR Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to from
one to five antimicrobials in Campylobacter coli from broilers in 2014
FREQCAMPJEGBR Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to from
one to five antimicrobials in Campylobacter jejuni from broilers in 2014
FREQCAMPJEGTURK Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to from
one to five antimicrobials in Campylobacter jejuni from fattening turkeys in 201
4
MULTICAMPCOBR MDR patterns of selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Campylobacter coli from broilers in 2014

MULTICAMPJEGBR MDR patterns of selected antimicrobials, Panel

1, in Campylobacter jejuni from broilers in 2014
MULTICAMPJEGTURK MDR patterns of selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in Campylobacter jejuni from fattening turkeys in 2014

FIG53 Comparison of CBPs and ECOFFs used to interpret MIC data reported for
Campylobacter spp. from humans, animals or food
FIG54 Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans completely
FIG55 Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans completely
FIG56 Spatial distribution of erythromycin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from
human cases in reporting countries in 2014
FIG57 Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates from humans completely
FIG58 Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and nalidixic acid resistance in
Campylobacter jejuni from broilers in MSs, 20082014
FIG59 Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and nalidixic acid resistance in Campylobacter coli
FIG60 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from
broilers of Gallus gallus in reporting countries in 2014
broilers of Gallus gallus in reporting countries in 2014
FIG62 Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates completely susceptible and
FIG63 Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates completely susceptible and
FIG64 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from
FIG66 Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates completely susceptible and
resistant to one to four antimicrobials, in fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014
FIG67 Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from broilers and fattening turkeys
3.3. Escherichia coli
3.3.1. Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from animals

CIPESCHEBR Ciprofloxacin resistance assessed at differing thresholds in

indicator Escherichia coli from broilers in 2014
CIPESCHETURK Ciprofloxacin resistance assessed at differing thresholds in indicator Escherichia coli fro
m fattening turkeys in 2014
COESCHEBR Coresistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in indicator Escherichia coli from broilers i
n 2014
COESCHETURK Co-
resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in indicator Escherichia coli from fatt
ening turkeys in 2014
COMESCHEBR Complete susceptibility and MDR in indicator Escherichia coli from broilers in 2014

COMESCHETURK Complete susceptibility and MDR in indicator in Escherichia coli from fattening turkeys i
n 2014
ESCHEBR2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials, Panel 2, in indicator Escherichia coli
from broilers in MSs reporting data in
ESCHEBRDESBL2 Specific monitoring of enzyme-producing E. coli from broilers in 2014:
occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials,
Panel 2, using harmonised epidemiological cut-off values
ESCHEBRDESBL Specific monitoring of enzyme-producing E. coli from broilers in 2014:
ESCHEBRMEATD2 Specific monitoring of enzyme-producing E. coli from broiler meat in 2014:
ESCHEBRMEATESBL Specific monitoring of enzyme-producing E. coli from broiler meat in 2014:
ESCHEBR Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials, Panel 1, in indicator Escherichia coli
from broilers in MSs reporting data in
ESCHEMEAT Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in indicator Escherichia coli from
meat in MSs reporting data in 2014, using harmonised epidemiological cut-
off values
ESCHEOVERVIEWESBL Overview of countries reporting antimicrobial resistance data using MIC on specific
monitoring of enzyme-producing E. coli
from various animal and food categories in 2014
ESCHEOVERVIEW Overview of countries reporting antimicrobial resistance data using MIC on indicator Es
cherichia coli from various animal and food categories in 2014
ESCHETURK2 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials, Panel 2, in indicator
Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmonised epid
emiological cut-off values
ESCHETURKESBL2 Specific monitoring of enzyme-producing E. coli from fattening turkeys in 2014:
ESCHETURKESBL Specific monitoring of enzyme-producing E. coli from fattening turkeys in 2014:
ESCHETURK Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials, Panel 1, in indicator
Escherichia coli isolates from fattening turkeys in 2014, using harmonised epid
emiological cut-off values
FREQESCHEBR Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to from
one to eleven antimicrobials in commensal indicator Escherichia coli from broile
rs in 2014
FREQESCHETURK Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to from
one to eleven antimicrobials in Escherichia coli from fattening turkeys in 2014
MULTIESCHEBR MDR patterns of selected antimicrobials, Panel 1,
in indicator Escherichia coli from broilers in 2014
MULTIESCHETURK MDR patterns of selected antimicrobials, Panel
1, in indicator Escherichia coli from fattening turkeys in 2014

FIG68 Trends in ampicillin and tetracyclines resistance in indicator Escherichia coli from
broilers in reporting countries, 20082014
FIG69 Trends in cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid resistance in indicator
Escherichia coli from broilers in reporting countries, 20082014
FIG70 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
FIG71 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from


FIG72 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
FIG73 Frequency distribution of Escherichia coli isolates completely susceptible and resistant
to one to twelve antimicrobials in broilers in reporting
FIG74 Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
FIG75 Spatial distribution of nalidixic acid resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
FIG76 Spatial distribution of cefotaxime resistance among indicator Escherichia coli from
FIG77 Frequency distribution of Escherichia coli isolates completely susceptible and resistant
to one to twelve antimicrobials in fattening turkeys in MSs, 2014
3.4. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
3.4.1. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food and animals

MRSAAMR Occurrence of resistance for selected antimicrobials in MRSA from food and animals in
MRSAANIMALCLIN MRSA in food-producing animals, clinical investigations, 2014
MRSAANIMAL MRSA in food-producing animals (excluding clinical investigations), 2014
MRSACLINANIMAL MRSA in companion animals, clinical investigations, 2014
MRSAFOOD MRSA in food, 2014
MRSAOVERVIEW Overview of countries reporting data on MRSA in animals and food in 2014
MRSATRENDANIMAL Temporal occurrence of MRSA in animals
MULTIMRSABREEDGG MDR patterns of selected antimicrobials in Staphylococcus aureus meticillin resistant fro
m breeding Gallus gallus in 2014
MULTIMRSALH MDR patterns of selected antimicrobials in Staphylococcus aureus meticillin resistant fro
m laying hens in 2014.
3.5.1. Third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance in Escherichia coli and Salmonella
RESCEPH1 Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam and carbapenem compounds among
Salmonella spp. subject to supplementary testing from broilers, laying hens
and meat from broilers in 2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
RESCEPH2 Resistance phenotypes identified in Salmonella spp. subjected to supplementary testing
from broilers, laying hens and meat from broilers in MSs in 2014
RESCEPH3 Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam and carbapenem compounds in indicator
E. coli isolates from broiler flocks subject to supplementary testing in 2014, using
harmonised ECOFFs
RESCEPH4 Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in indicator E. coli isolates from
broiler flocks subjected to supplementary testing in 2014
RESCEPH5 Occurrence of resistance to beta-lactam and carbapenem compounds in indicator
E. coli isolates from fattening turkeys subject to supplementary testing in
2014, using harmonised ECOFFs
RESCEPH6 Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in indicator E. coli isolates from
fattening turkeys subjected to supplementary testing in 2014
RESCEPH7 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Escherichia coli from broilers and
fattening turkeys in reporting countries, specific ESBL monitoring, Panel 2, in
2014

RESCEPH8 Occurrence of resistance to selected antimicrobials in Escherichia coli from broilers and
fattening turkeys in reporting countries, specific ESBL monitoring, panel 2, in
2014
RESCEPH9 Presumptive ESBL and AmpC phenotypes identified in E. coli from broilers recovered
from the specific monitoring on ESBLs/AmpC/Carbapenemases and subjected
to supplementary testing or molecular typing confirmation in 2014
RESCEPH10 Resistance (%) to cefotaxime and ceftazidime in Salmonella spp. and indicator E. coli
isolates in MSs in 2014 testing both bacterial species in broilers or fattening
turkeys

Antimicrobial Resistance Zoonotic Bacteria Humans Animals Food EU Summary Report 2014

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Antimicrobial Resistance Zoonotic Bacteria Humans Animals Food EU Summary Report 2014

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SCIENTIFIC REPORT

ADOPTED: 9 February 2016 PUBLISHED: 11 February 2016 AMENDED: 11 March 2016

The European Union summary report on antimicrobial

Keywords: antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic bacteria, indicator bacteria, ESBL

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 3 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Horizon Scanning transferable resistance to colistin and erythromycin.

Main findings regarding Salmonella

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 4 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

In poultry populations and meat derived thereof

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 5 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Table 1: Summary of phenotypic characterisation of third generation cephalosporin resistance in

Presumptive Presumptive Presumptive

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 6 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

S. Agona, 2.2 S. Montevideo, 2.1

* One third of the S. Infantis isolates were reported by Romania.

S. Kentucky (N=82) Susceptible

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 7 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Main findings regarding Campylobacter

In poultry populations and meat derived thereof

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 8 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter spp.

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 9 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter spp. (continued)

Figure 3: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from broilers

Figure 4: Erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli from fattening turkeys

Main findings regarding indicator commensal Escherichia coli

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 10 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Table 2: Summary of phenotypic characterisation of third generation cephalosporin resistance in

Presumptive Presumptive Presumptive

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 11 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Main findings regarding colistin resistance in Salmonella and E. coli

Figure 5: Colistin resistance in Salmonella

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 12 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Resistance to colistin (continued)

Figure 6: Colistin resistance in indicator E. coli

Main findings regarding meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 13 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 14 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 15 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

Table 1: Summary of phenotypic characterisation of third generation cephalosporin resistance in

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 16 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 17 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 18 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 19 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 20 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 21 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

1.1. Monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance at the EU level

1.2. Further harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 22 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

1.2.1. New legislation on antimicrobial resistance monitoring in animals and

1.2.2. Developments in the harmonised monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 23 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

1.3. The 2014 EU summary report on AMR

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 24 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Antimicrobial susceptibility data from humans available in 2014

2.1.1. Salmonella data of human origin

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 25 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

2.1.2. Campylobacter data of human origin

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 26 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 27 EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4380